PETITIONS
	 — 
	Community Pharmacies

Christopher Chope: I have pleasure in presenting two petitions, which I wholeheartedly support, from the users of community pharmacies in the Christchurch constituency. The first is signed by some 720 users of St. Ives pharmacy in High street, Ashley Heath—which, incidentally, is the shortest high street in the country. It states that the petitioners:
	Declare that the proposals of the Office of Fair Trading to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions would result in a decline in the availability and quality of local health care currently provided from community pharmacies.
	The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject these proposals by the Office of Fair Trading and promote the NHS pharmacy plan to encourage and support local community pharmacies.
	The second petition is in similar terms and is signed by some 1,420 users of other local pharmacies in my constituency, including the users of the Warren pharmacy at the Grove in west Christchurch, Moors pharmacy in West Moors and pharmacies serving Ferndown, Highcliffe and Somerford. All the petitioners will be disappointed that it seems that the period of uncertainty for community pharmacies is now to extend late into the summer, which is very regrettable.
	To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

Sustainable Energy Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Brian White: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Last November, I decided to work on a Bill to promote sustainable energy for two simple reasons. The first was that the issue had been debated before and there was a need to restore some credibility to Parliament following the events that surrounded the Home Energy Conservation Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). The second was to raise the profile of aspects of energy policy that I thought had been long neglected. We had had report after report, but no follow-through action. The performance and innovation unit's report had been out for several months, but even that very good document left several questions unanswered. The royal commission on environmental pollution made its recommendations on carbon dioxide emissions in June 2000, and I am promoting the Bill in that context. Since that time, we have had guidance to the regulator on social and environmental issues. More recently, we have had a White Paper, not to mention a few more reports.
	My Bill seeks not to replace those other documents but to build on them. Its timing could not be better, given the Government's commitments in the White Paper. The Bill also seeks to build on the work of several hon. Members on both sides of the House , and in the other place who have promoted Bills on similar subjects. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), Baroness Maddock and my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and for Brighton, Kemptown—to name but a few—have either introduced private Members' Bills or initiated Adjournment debates on these important issues.
	I am most grateful for the support of the sustainable energy partnership, which is a wide coalition of groups that have campaigned for
	"cohesive structures, resources, legislation and statutory targets for the use of low and zero carbon technologies and energy efficiency, to counter climate change and fuel poverty by strengthening and extending Government commitments to achieve in the longer term the 60% CO2 reduction by 2050".
	The royal commission recommended that reduction. Early-day motion 910 sets out the long list of supporters. It includes companies, voluntary groups, campaigning groups and the green movements of the three main parties.
	Powergen is running a television advert. It asks, if we were starting from here, what type of energy policy we would promote. It answers the question by saying that it would involve renewable energy—in the case of Powergen, wind power. The same idea could apply to our energy policy. If we had a blank sheet of paper, we would design a policy that was primarily built on renewables.

Win Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware of the exciting project that will begin shortly in Swansea bay for tidal lagoon energy? Tidal Electric, the sponsors of the project, believes that such energy can supply 10 per cent. of our renewable energy in the short term and 25 per cent. in the long term. Its cost will be competitive with the cheapest forms of energy currently available. Would my hon. Friend like that form of renewable energy to be much more strongly promoted?

Brian White: I was not aware of the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. One of the things that is important, as I hope to demonstrate in my Bill, is the need to create innovative schemes such as that to which he refers. If we do that, we have a chance of changing the energy balance in this country and achieving the renewables target, but it is only through innovative, imaginative schemes that will we get there. I therefore welcome the work that is being done in Swansea.
	We can all agree about the motherhood and apple pie statements. As my hon. Friend has just said, however, the challenge is how we turn them into reality. I do not pretend that my Bill is a panacea, but it is a key first step in delivering the goals of the White Paper.
	Before I say what my Bill does, perhaps I can mention two things that it does not do. Some have suggested that it is designed to undermine the Utilities Act 2000. I refute that, even if I shudder at the memory of its Committee stage. I shall talk about that when we deal with combined heat and power issues. Neither is my Bill an attack on nuclear power—I hope to make that clear in particular to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I concede that there are opponents of nuclear power who are supporters of this Bill, and there are even supporters of nuclear power who are supporters of this Bill. We need a debate about the role that nuclear power has to play in this country, and whether it has a role. Countries such as Finland have shown that there is a major debate to be held, but I am clear that my Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for that debate.
	Some will say that, now that we have the White Paper, action will automatically follow. Experience under all Governments, however, teaches us that words are one thing and changing the actions at the operations end of a Department another. The White Paper says:
	"Leaving action until the last minute is not a serious option. If we do not begin now more dramatic, more disruptive and more expensive change will be needed later on. We need early, well planned action to provide a framework within which businesses and the economy generally, including the skills and jobs base, can adjust to the need for change".
	It continues:
	"Energy producers, investors, business and consumers need a clear settled long-term framework within which they can plan and make decisions with confidence".
	I hope that my Bill will allow the early start that has been called for, which is vital and which gives producers that clear framework.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that clear and unequivocal targets must be set if any progress is to be recorded, registered or achieved?

Brian White: The hon. Gentleman leads me neatly on to my next point. I was going to say that, when I proposed the Bill, all anyone saw in it was the word "targets". I ought to say a few things about targets.
	I am a great believer in targets, but we must recognise their limitations. I am currently sitting on the Public Administration Committee, and this week we concluded an investigation into targets. I assure the House that the report will be well worth reading, as it deals with targets throughout the public sector. The key point about targets, however, is that they change the way in which people behave. A good target will redirect resources. If we are not serious about redirecting resources, there is no point in having targets. Targets are also about changing the culture of an organisation. They can turn a service that is coasting into one that is delivering action. They have great symbolism: they send a message to policy makers, to front-line staff, to users, to businesses and to others that the Government regard the matter concerned as vital. They also focus attention on the barriers to change and, as I said to my hon. Friend, they allow for innovative thinking.

Bob Spink: I am here to support the hon. Gentleman's initiative, even though I support nuclear power. He mentioned good targets, and I agree that they are essential. Does he agree that part of the definition of a good target is that it is achievable and is perceived as being achievable? Is he aware that the target being set by the Government for renewables in five, 10 and 20 years is widely perceived as not being achievable? Nor does any international evidence suggest that those targets could be achieved, and nor does the level of investment—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his intervention to a close?

Bob Spink: Nor does the investment that the Government are giving to renewables indicate that that the targets would be achieved.

Brian White: I do not accept that we should set targets that we know that we will achieve. We should set targets that are challenging and stretching and that require a change in what we do in order to achieve them. If we simply set targets that we knew we could achieve, it would not achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants. The targets that we set need to be demanding. It is interesting that one of the things that the Select Committee considered was that, in the private sector, people who achieve 80 per cent. of their targets are considered to have done really well, whereas, in the public sector, people who achieve 80 per cent. are slaughtered because they have not achieved the remaining 20 per cent. The key point is to set targets that change people's behaviour and the way in which they operate. We must allow renewables to grow and become a far bigger proportion of the energy sources in this country. Whether it is 9 per cent., 10 per cent., or whatever figure people choose, is less important than the fact that the target will change behaviour and the way in which people perceive things.

Anne Campbell: Like many Members here, I also support the Bill. A moment ago, my hon. Friend talked about barriers to progress. Does he agree that, over the past few years, one of the problems has been objections to planning applications for wind farms? We must change our attitude to wind farms and examine much more carefully what benefits offshore wind can bring.

Brian White: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the great underused resources is wind power. In fact, the PIU report said that Britain has the greatest potential for renewable energy of any country in Europe. I had lunch with a constituent who is a property developer and is involved in schemes in Germany, and he told me that, as part of the conditions of a scheme that he is working on in Germany, he has to install a solar power plant to provide renewable energy for the development. The Department of Trade and Industry, however, primarily has a policy of capital grants. The policy in Germany, however, is to deliver that extra energy through green tariffs and low-interest loans and through the planning system. Germany has achieved the 200 MW target to which the DTI aspires by 2012. It is therefore possible. My hon. Friend raises a key issue—it is not simply about money; it is also about removing the barriers in the system through regulation and other measures. Targets, as I said, are key because they transform the way in which a Department operates.

Andrew Dismore: Like many Members, I am also here to support the Bill, but I am concerned that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. When we talk about projects such as wind farms, it is important that we are environmentally sensitive, for example, to wilderness areas, few of which remain, and that we do not end up destroying our natural environment for the purposes of energy, as has happened in some parts of continental Europe.

Brian White: My hon. Friend highlights a problem that needs to be addressed, but it can be addressed through the planning system. It is a question of reconciling different interests and differing pressures, and that system has been very good, over 50 years, at balancing those different needs. My hon. Friend can therefore rest assured that having a wind farm policy is not irreconcilable with good environmental practice.

Crispin Blunt: That issue affects many people throughout the country who are presented with the prospect of a wind farm on their doorstep, often in areas of outstanding natural beauty. At what stage of the planning system does the hon. Gentleman think that the real decision should be taken? Who should make the trade-off between the environmental impact on the local community and the wider energy needs of the country?

Brian White: Local plans, such as county structure plans or unitary development plans, are the key to that debate. They would set a framework that would last for the duration of the plan, which may be 10 or 15 years. A debate about different types of renewable energy should be held during the public inquiry that forms part of the planning process. The local community could give its input and express its concerns about such things as the natural beauty of the landscape, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) talked about, yet make the point that it also needs renewable and green energy.

Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that the forces of conservatism that have tried to use the planning process to delay decisions on eminently sensible wind farms must be prevented from inhibiting the development of such a sustainable energy industry? Does he also accept that serious planning reform is needed urgently so that quicker decisions are made, although the local community should nevertheless have a say on whether those projects go ahead?

Brian White: I was chair of the Local Government Association's planning committee before I entered Parliament. The committee tried to speed up the planning process to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend mentions. I am well aware of the concerns that he raises.
	The Bill focuses on only five areas of sustainable energy. I could have made it a lot wider but I had to draw the boundary somewhere, so it does not include transport.

Jackie Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that hon. Members' comments reflect the incorrect perception in the public's eyes that renewable energy means only wind farms? There are many other types of renewable energy, such as biomass. I am especially interested in how that may help us to reach sustainable energy targets and encourage our farmers to diversify, which would secure a good future for farming in this country.

Brian White: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I talked to representatives of BP a little while ago who told me that the company could produce biofuel in its existing refineries. However, there is a regulatory problem due to Customs and Excise. My Bill would highlight such problems and allow for the removal of barriers. I agree that making progress on biomass and biofuels is a key issue.
	The Bill covers not only renewables, but combined heat and power, energy efficiency, carbon dioxide emissions and fuel poverty. I shall outline how it would address that, and I shall try to be brief because many hon. Members may wish to contribute to the debate. Clause 1 requires the Government to produce an annual report on the steps they are taking to reach the targets. I chose my wording to give maximum flexibility on the way in which they produce the report, which would highlight and identify problems. The Government have committed themselves to a reporting duty in the White Paper and my Bill would give statutory backing to that pledge.
	There are four key areas of activity, the first of which is renewables. I originally planned for the Bill to cover only the Government's existing commitments, but I changed the target for the amount of energy to be produced from renewable sources by 2020 from 20 to 25 per cent. on the basis of three key reports from the Sustainable Development Commission, the Institute for Public Policy Research and Future Energy Solutions. They all argued that 25 per cent. was a better figure, and although the Government might want to amend the target back to 20 per cent. in Committee, there is a strong argument for why the Government should be challenged to adopt a target of 25 per cent.
	I am glad that the White Paper reaffirmed the targets for CHP by 2010 and 2020. It is important to send a clear signal to the CHP industry because after two years of waiting, it urgently needs a series of measures that reflect more robust support from the Government. It is rather disappointed by the renewables obligation in the White Paper despite the fact that Ministers have stated that CHP is one of the most cost-effective technologies. The Bill would remove the renewables obligation from CHP because it is one of the cheapest carbon-saving technologies, as the PIU report identified. The White Paper could have promised more for CHP and I hope that we will return to that in Committee.

Christopher Chope: What sanctions would the hon. Gentleman introduce if a CHP target were missed? The Government have missed the CHP target but they do not appear to be liable for sanctions as a result. What is the point of having targets if there is no sanction for missing them?

Brian White: The Bill would require the production of a report within a year of its enactment and annual reports thereafter. If the Government are forced to produce such reports, it will become apparent when targets are missed. Any action that follows will come from the House. It is important to have transparency and for information to be available publicly. We must understand why targets are missed because there might be valid reasons for that. Targets might be exceeded, so it is important that the whole picture is available. If targets are missed, it is up to us to introduce measures to change the situation.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) raised an important point on the absence of sanctions. One of the problems of relying on targets and the availability of information in the public domain is that the Government may change the basis on which they provide the information. They have done precisely that in the White Paper when addressing energy efficiency because it uses measures of how many million tonnes of carbon are saved rather than the percentage change to energy consumption. It is even more difficult to assess whether the Government are achieving their targets when the basis of the figures changes.

Brian White: I have an assurance on the way in which the Government presented the targets in the White Paper. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) received a parliamentary answer stating that 5 million tonnes of carbon is equivalent to the 20 per cent. target identified by the PIU. I am happy to amend my Bill to detail the target in such terms. The key point is that the annual report will set out what has happened and how the Government are moving toward reaching the targets. It will also identify barriers so that action can be taken against them. We did not know what constituted the barriers in the past; we have had only an assertion of what the target is. As the target should be reached in several years' time, there is currently no mechanism to identify how close we are to it. The Bill would allow for such a mechanism.
	Clause 1(2) sets out different methods and technologies that are applicable to the report. The report should outline aspects of the generation of heat and electricity so that it will be clear which parts are working. If anything is not working, that can be rectified. I believe that the vast majority of the measures will work, demonstrating to the business community that there is a tremendous opportunity for investment and for new industries to move forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said a moment ago, there are great opportunities for innovative schemes. One of the problems, under all Governments, has been the lack of a clear indication of how the different technologies fit into the overall picture. The reporting structure should address that concern.
	Clause 1(3) is designed to ensure progress in the early implementation of the EU directive on the energy performance of buildings. The Government are to be congratulated on the early introduction of that directive. The Bill allows annual assessments of progress to be made, to ensure that no time is lost in implementing the directive.
	One of the key parts of the Bill is clause 2, which gives statutory backing to domestic energy efficiency targets.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that energy efficiency measures are the quickest, cleanest and most effective way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Does he accept that, in contrast to the renewables policy, energy efficiency measures enable individual businesses and householders directly to influence their energy bills because they control the introduction of those measures? Does he welcome the use of capital allowances for businesses to implement energy efficiency measures, and does he think that capital allowances could also be used to allow individual householders to offset against personal taxation the cost of installing new boilers or insulation? Is there some mileage in that idea, and will my hon. Friend raise it with the Chancellor?

Brian White: I am sure that the Chancellor will have heard my hon. Friend's intervention. I agree that capital allowances for businesses are crucial, and I am sure that they could work for domestic use as well. He is right to identify energy efficiency as the key to achieving the Government's targets on CO2 emissions. Even though the White Paper talks about 5 million tonnes of carbon, I think that the 20 per cent. target set by the PIU is crucial. It is worth remembering that the White Paper says that energy efficiency is likely to be the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of achieving the Government's energy policy objectives. That is why clause 2 is important.

Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that energy efficiency measures also tackle the fuel policy agenda championed my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), which, unlike some energy measures, combines social action with environmental action?

Brian White: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is interesting to note that the PIU report identified micro-CHP as a significant way of tackling fuel poverty. It is important that we use energy efficiency measures to reduce the energy use of local authorities and domestic households, and I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson).

Alan Simpson: On energy efficiency measures, does my hon. Friend accept that there is a case for extending, rather than reducing, the warm front programme? We should look at the lessons learned in Scotland, where additions to the programme have been made. Given that there are 1.7 million fuel-poor households who are not eligible for the programme and 1.4 million households who are not fuel poor but are eligible, we should look at the allocation process. We need to be able to target energy efficiency gains more effectively so that those in the greatest fuel poverty are the greatest beneficiaries of the programme.

Brian White: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have made a good start, and they have already met many of their targets for removing people from fuel poverty, but there is an awful lot more to do and there are lessons to be learned from Scotland. It is important that we do far more over the next 20 years than we have done over the last 20.

Gwyn Prosser: I am pleased to be here this morning supporting my hon. Friend's important Bill. On domestic energy efficiency targets, which I agree are the crux of the Bill, does he agree that there is scope to go beyond 2010 and consider more ambitious aims?

Brian White: Absolutely. There are different definitions of fuel poverty, and it is important to use the widest definition.
	Other parts of clause 2 stem from Government amendments made to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown last year, so hopefully they will be relatively uncontroversial.
	I have already referred to clause 3 and to the lifting of the renewables obligation from the CHP industry. Clause 4 imposes on Ofgem a statutory duty to have regard to the sustainable energy policy when discharging its functions. There is guidance on environmental and social issues, but it is important that Ofgem has statutory backing. Clause 4 also takes on board the proposal in the White Paper that the regulator should publish an environmental impact assessment for any significant new policies. I have had discussions with the regulator on those issues.

Gareth Thomas: Clause 4 is important, and if, as I hope, the Bill is given a Second Reading, the clause stand part debate in Committee will be an excellent opportunity to discuss Ofgem's performance on renewables, given its complete failure since the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements seriously to address the concerns of CHP and renewables generators.

Brian White: As someone who tabled amendments to that effect in the Standing Committee considering the Utilities Bill, I would be delighted to have that debate. However, it is important to recognise that Parliament, not the regulator, sets out the framework of the regulator's job. Regulators will do what Parliament tells them to do, and it is up to us to give Ofgem the powers to consider sustainable energy policies, renewables and CHP if that is what we want it to do.
	Clause 5 also responds to the White Paper, and it allows the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to fund the capital costs of new sustainable energy schemes. Clause 6 helps to tackle fuel poverty by ensuring that the policies of local authorities and the Government will be co-ordinated.

Debra Shipley: In defining fuel poverty, the terms "total income" and "disposable income" are very important. In the White Paper, the Government have moved from the standard assessment, which is 10 per cent. of disposable income, to 10 per cent. of total income. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Brian White: Both definitions are important. The Government have used the narrower definition for the first initiative, and it is important that we now begin to use the wider definition to which my hon. Friend refers.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the many problems faced by pensioners is that they cannot invest in insulation for their houses because of the high burden of council tax? There are now more than 1 million pensioner households who pay over 10 per cent. of their income in council tax. Will the hon. Gentleman say something about that?

Brian White: Given that Tory councils have a higher council tax than Labour councils, I wonder why the hon. Gentleman does not raise that point. If I strayed too far down that road, you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	To conclude, my Bill is a modest step towards turning the White Paper's aspirations into reality. In the Prime Minister's words:
	"By working with others, the costs of action will be acceptable—and the costs of inaction are far greater"
	in the long run.
	My Bill has widespread support from a broad coalition of renewables organisations, environmental non-governmental organisations, homelessness and housing charities and, as I said, the green movements of all three major parties. I believe that taking action on renewables and energy efficiency provides the best way forward. With the help of my Bill, renewables and energy efficiency will have the chance to "prove themselves", as the Minister for Energy and Construction said when he launched the White Paper. Sustainable energy does not have to come at the expense of prosperity. Indeed, there are clear economic advantages in moving this sector forward, so I trust that Parliament will give its backing to the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to speak in the debate, not least because I am privileged to be one of the sponsors of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I congratulate him on his good fortune in drawing sixth place in the ballot. I have to say that in all the years that I have been a Member of the House, I have been successful in the ballot only once, when I drew 10th place back in 1970 AD. I wish the Bill Godspeed and greatly hope that the House will support it. The hon. Gentleman tells us that all the political parties support the Bill, so once again we may be in danger of having a political love-in during the debate.
	The Bill admirably seeks to enhance the Government's commitment to achieve energy efficiency, including targets for renewables, combined heat and power and so forth. Let us remember that when the Government introduced their White Paper on 24 February this year, one of its four objectives was
	"to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated"—
	a noble aspiration. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill has massive support from many prestigious organisations throughout the country.
	I particularly welcome clause 1, which places a duty not only on the Secretary of State but on the appropriate authorities to report progress in achieving specific targets. I shall return to them in a moment. I also welcome clause 2, which requires the Secretary of State to achieve improvements in domestic energy efficiency—by at least 20 per cent. by 2010 on the baseline of 2002. Clause 4, which amends the Utilities Act 2000, requires the regulator Ofgem to have regard to sustainable energy policy. Also welcome is clause 6, which is designed to help eradicate fuel poverty by ensuring, among other things, better co-ordination between national and local action.
	I support targets, though they can be overdone. Apart from supporting this Bill, the hon. Gentleman and I share several things in common, one of which is membership of the Public Administration Committee, which has recently completed an inquiry into targets. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that we discovered that the Benefits Agency had either set itself, or had imposed on it, 152 targets. There is a danger of over-targeting. Nevertheless, I am a keen supporter of targets because they help to focus not only the Government's intentions but public support. It helps if everyone knows what the Government are trying to achieve on a specific issue by a particular time.
	Several aspects of the Government White Paper disappoint me. Strangely, it does not provide an energy efficiency target—that is why I am particularly pleased that the hon. Gentleman's Bill does and specifies the mechanisms for delivery. As already mentioned, the White Paper says:
	"The cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing our energy policy objectives is to use less energy".
	That is why it is especially strange that no specific energy efficiency targets were set in the White Paper. Indeed, the more one reads it, the more confusing it gets. The Government seem to provide a firm target for combined heat and power, but only an aspirational target for renewables and no target at all for energy efficiency. The White Paper's reticence about setting firm targets is strange.
	With the indulgence of the House, let me examine the targets more carefully. The performance and innovation unit stated in its energy review that the Government should aim to have 20 per cent. of electricity production to be provided by renewable sources by 2020. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Sustainable Development Commission increased the target to 25 per cent. The Environmental Audit Committee backed the performance and innovation unit's target, and I am delighted to see that the 25 per cent. target appears in the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
	It will certainly be difficult to reach 10 per cent. by 2010—the first mile post for renewable production. The Minister may be able to confirm that currently only about 3 per cent. of electricity production is through renewables. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) referred to the different forms of renewables. I shall not list them all, but we have been talking about onshore or offshore wind power, solar power, tidal power, wind and wave power, geothermal, biomass and so forth. It seems to me that the Government have simply said, "You out there must reach 10 per cent. by 2010," but I believe that specific targets should be set. I realise that they have to be flexible: there may be good developments in one form of renewable energy, but difficulties encountered in others. Nevertheless, the Government should provide much more specific advice and establish targets for the different forms of renewable energy.
	On combined heat and power, the target is to achieve an increase in installed capacity of at least 10 GW by 2010, and of a further 10 GW by 2020. I did not gain A-level mathematics at school but I understand that a gigawatt is 1,000 million watts.
	I have some worries about carbon dioxide emissions. The target is a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010 on 1990 levels. The White Paper says that the Government want to move towards 20 per cent., which does not sound like a specific and firm commitment. Labour Members will know that I am an avid reader of their party manifestos. I simply remind them that both the 1997 and 2001 Labour party manifestos included a firm commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide levels by 2020. Let us remember that the royal commission on environmental pollution advocated the 20 per cent. target and I certainly welcome the far-sighted and specific target in the hon. Gentleman's Bill of aiming for a 60 per cent. reduction in such emissions by 2050. Worryingly, the Department's own estimates suggest that carbon dioxide emissions increased in 2000 and 2001. To pluck a figure from the air, since 1997, there has been an increase of 1.2 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions. There is therefore a serious challenge ahead, and I hope that the Government are laying plans to try and reverse that trend—we hope that it is just of the moment—and achieve the target of a 20 per cent. reduction.
	I applaud some of the things that the Government have done in this area. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said, the promotion of sustainable energy has all-party support, but I wish that the Government would try to be a little more open. I believe that there is great support among the public for making sustainable development a reality. The Government would do themselves, as well as the House, a good turn if they shared those targets, added them specifically to the Bill, and approved them. We could then work together to try to achieve them.
	I have the great privilege of serving as chairman of the sustainable development committee in the 44-nation Council of Europe. The Bill is a small but important step towards bringing about sustainable development.

Gareth Thomas: I broadly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has supported the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and on his chairmanship of the committee to which he has just referred. Will he consider trying to find a place on that committee for Bernard Ingham to educate him about the benefits of sustainable development, particularly wind power. He seems to be one of the key figures on the hon. Gentleman's side still opposed to wind power.

Sydney Chapman: I have learned something from the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that Sir Bernard Ingham is unlikely to be able to secure a place on my committee, simply because the Council of Europe consists of parliamentary representatives from 44 nations.

Christopher Chope: Given my hon. Friend's great knowledge of the situation in Europe, will he enlighten us as to why domestic electricity prices in Denmark are about 70 per cent. higher than they are here? Denmark is just about the only country in Europe to rely heavily on wind power generation, so are the two connected?

Sydney Chapman: I do not think they are, but I would not claim to be the expert that my hon. Friend thinks that I am. To be serious, when we talk about biodiversity and sustainable development, do electors know exactly what we are talking about? Are we talking about vital things in a language that they can understand? I attended the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg last year as chairman of that Council of Europe committee. I addressed parliamentary representatives at the conference, and gave a prize to the person who could explain in the fewest words exactly what sustainable development is. I got it down to seven words—not that the shortest explanation won, but the one that was easiest for the public to understand. I defined sustainable development as "conserving earth's finite resources for future generations."

Debra Shipley: I know that the hon. Gentleman's CV includes an interest in architecture. In the context of his remarks on sustainable development, does he agree that the Government have a massive house, school and hospital building programme, and there is a major opportunity to introduce all the green measures that many of us want and make them an integral part of that programme? With the hon. Gentleman's architectural background, would he like to comment on that?

Sydney Chapman: I would be delighted to respond to that request from the hon. Lady, who is chairman of the all-party group on architecture and planning. In passing, we have a saying in the Royal Institute of British Architects that some of the most successful architects are sent to the other place—the failures come to the House of Commons. There are very few failures in architecture, because I am the only architect in the House of Commons at the moment.
	In conclusion, I feel strongly that the Bill is thoroughly commendable, and is a small but useful step towards promoting sustainable development, which is vital for the future of our eco-system. I qualified as an architect many years ago, and believe that design is an integral part of sustainable development—that is the point that I wish to get over. It is amazing, in a country which boasts the fourth-largest economy in the world, that not all our people live in warm homes. That is a blot on any nation which calls itself civilised.

Christopher Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. Does he therefore believe that the development of nuclear energy is part of sustainable development?

Sydney Chapman: The issue of nuclear generation is controversial, but it would be of immense help in meeting those renewables targets if we had a second generation of nuclear power stations in this country. However, that argument is for another day. I am grateful to be called to speak, and I wish the Bill of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East all good.

Desmond Turner: It is a great pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on introducing his Bill in the House. It was a wise choice on his part to use the opportunity to raise a subject that is particularly close to my heart. I expect that hon. Members remember the chastening experience of the Home Energy Conservation Bill, which I introduced in the House last year. Happily, the key measures on energy conservation and fuel poverty in my Bill are included in the Bill that we are considering today. I hope that they will be endorsed by everyone in the House and will reach the statute book.
	I was going to give a longer speech, but the Whips have prevailed on me to give a shorter one.

Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Desmond Turner: What, on the length of my speech?

Crispin Blunt: No—I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the note of the Whips prevailing over him.
	Is it not the case that an amendment to the hon. Gentleman's Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) is part of the present Bill? When the hon. Gentleman talked out his own Bill in the House, he said that the amendment was effectively a wrecking amendment. Will he explain why he now appears to be a supporter of that measure?

Desmond Turner: I am happy to put the hon. Gentleman right. The agreed content of my Bill—agreed, that is, with the Government—is the same as that of the present Bill. There is no conflict whatsoever. The hon. Gentleman must know that that amendment was a wrecking amendment not because anyone disagreed with it but because, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) must have known perfectly well, the Government were not prepared to accept it. It is as simple as that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East tabled an early-day motion asking people to support his Bill. I did not sign that motion, not because I do not support the Bill enthusiastically, but because it began by endorsing the policies set out in the White Paper. I could not subscribe to that.
	My speech is now much shorter, because I had prepared a piece-by-piece demolition job on the White Paper. Like an awful lot of papers, it is not worth the glossy paper on which it is printed, not because it does not contain much good factual material—it does—but facts are facts, and there is no particular disagreement about those. The crucial issue is that it is effectively a policy-free White Paper. It does not present any significant new policy; it does not commit to any significant new Government expenditure; it does not propose any new legislation that is not already in the pipeline. The Bill is a significant advance on my own because of the provision for Government reporting annually on progress towards the achievement of a sustainable energy economy.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) pointed out that most people in the field are agreed that the aspirational targets of 10 per cent. renewable energy by 2010 and 20 per cent. by 2020 will not be fulfilled if we proceed as we are doing at present. The White Paper offers no measures to address that situation. That is the nub of the problem. The annual reporting process will expose for all to see the fact that we are not on course to meet our targets. We clearly will not reach 10 per cent. by 2010 unless progress is vastly expedited above its present rate, and 20 per cent. by 2020 is a pipedream unless we do something serious.
	The very notion of sustainable energy development in as ruthlessly liberalised an energy economy as we currently have is an oxymoron. It is pointless to worry about whether Denmark's electricity prices are 7 per cent. higher than ours. That is trivial.

Christopher Chope: I did not say 7 per cent. I said 70 per cent., which is quite significant.

Desmond Turner: That still does not matter much. If we look at the economies with which we are in competition in the world marketplace, there is very little correlation between cheap energy and their competitiveness. It is clear that electricity prices per se are not a significant factor in competitiveness. If a modest increase in the wholesale price of electricity—remember that it is very low in this country at present: 1.6p per kilowatt-hour, but the consumer benefits very little from that—brought us the opportunity of a sustainable future, that would be the big benefit.
	If we go on as we are doing, we will never get anywhere near the 60 per cent. CO2 reductions, and coming generations will simply fry. We all know that the most moderate climate change scenarios for the future that are predicated on the 60 per cent. reduction are still quite serious. Anything less than 60 per cent. starts to move into the disaster area. Against such a compelling driver, the odd 0.5p on the wholesale price of electricity becomes trivial.
	The annual reporting process will reveal for all to see what progress we are making towards achieving sustainable energy. The 10 per cent., the 20 per cent. and even the 25 per cent. targets or aspirations are all perfectly technically feasible if we go about it in the right way. The Government have a leading role to play in that. We have seen from the example of Denmark and wind power what can be achieved by a determined Government, but in the White Paper there is no evidence whatever of such determination. The Government behave like a bystander, saying, "Oh, look. All these things are happening. If we stand back and let them happen, they may happen." They will not happen unless the Government adopt a much more determined approach.

Debra Shipley: I return to the subject of the building programme and the construction industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build houses with green qualities on a mass scale never known before in Europe? Such building exists on a small scale, not on the mass scale that the Government have the opportunity to achieve with the unit price driven down by mass production?

Desmond Turner: I entirely agree. I have seen the future in terms of zero energy housing—in effect, housing that can feed back into the grid surplus photovoltaic energy. The technology is available. My hon. Friend is right. If it is exploited on a mass production basis, it will be affordable and the benefits will be enormous.
	What do the British Government do? They spend all of £60 million investing in energy research and development and deployment. How does that compare with our international competitors? France spends seven times as much, Germany about four times as much, the United States 30 times as much and Japan 40 times as much. We will not get into any big league with that sort of spend. The level of spend in industry is abysmal. Since the privatisation of the energy utilities, their research and development investment has plummeted, so the money is not there. The major impetus for R and D in renewables is coming from small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have the levels of finance needed to drive that on a major scale.
	Our present energy policy is fragmented. Research and development is spread across five research councils. We have about four independent bodies such as the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust, none of which has very much money to play with, all doing their own thing. There is no central driving vision to make the aspirations come about.
	On Thursday my Select Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, will publish our report, "Towards a Non-Carbon Fuel Economy". I am a little sad that the Energy Minister is not present in the Chamber today, but I ask his representative on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), to point out to the Energy Minister that the policy vacuum in the White Paper will be filled on Thursday if the Government have the wisdom to adopt the recommendations contained in the report, which convention prevents me from revealing now.
	I can say, however, that there will be in the report a coherent, affordable, comprehensive and workable energy policy which, if the Government adopt it, will mean that when they come to write their annual report—assuming the Bill becomes law, as I very much hope it will—the Government will be able to present it to Parliament with pride, rather than shame. I hope that hon. Members will give the Bill a safe passage.

David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on his good fortune in winning a place in the ballot for private Member's Bills. It is a great honour for me, along with others, to be a sponsor of the Bill. When I say "good fortune", I had a conversation with an hon. Member recently who told me that the average length of service of Members of Parliament is seven years. If that is the case, many of us are living on borrowed time, and I cannot believe that.

Nigel Griffiths: For the same seat?

David Amess: I shall ignore the Minister's jibe from a sedentary position.
	Whatever the situation, it is unlikely that a Member of Parliament will be successful in the ballot for private Member's Bills, so the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has been fortunate. I was fortunate after 18 attempts, and until my name was drawn in the ballot, I never realised how popular I was. Every lobbying organisation in the country had the temerity—not thinking that after 18 years I would have my own interests—to press on me their particular concerns. I had no expertise whatever in the field, but I am pleased that I decided to go with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill.
	I think that I know how the hon. Gentleman feels. It is all very well being successful in the ballot, but then the fun begins, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) found last year, and I wholeheartedly endorse every word of his speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and I hope that hon. Members will make relatively short speeches so that we can ensure that the Bill reaches Committee.
	I do not know whether the Minister has drawn the short straw in being here today or is thrilled to bits to be listening to us all, but if the House of Commons is to be taken seriously, and if we are to be concerted in our efforts—without passing around the sick bag—to save the planet and improve the quality of the lives of women and men, this sort of legislation should be at the heart of our endeavours.
	An oral question of mine earlier this week caused some amusement among hon. Members because I asked what was the point of any of us being sent to Parliament to legislate when the laws that we make are not adhered to, and that is the crux of my contribution this morning. We should have aspirations and ensure that this mother of Parliaments sticks to them. Those who are cynical and say that the Bill is a waste of time are completely wrong. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is trying to make this a better country in which to live, and I support him in that and am particularly proud that he happened to reside for a considerable time in Southend.
	I want to focus on clause 6, which deals with fuel poverty, and clause 2, which deals with energy efficiency, because they are the matters in which I was interested in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. As has already been said, clause 2 is an essential part of the Bill. It fills a large and perplexing hole in the White Paper, on which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown spoke eloquently. That document, which is long on aspiration but short on hard policies to achieve those aspirations, is also stunningly illogical as regards domestic energy efficiency. Let me explain.
	In paragraphs 1.19 and 3.2 energy efficiency is stated explicitly to be the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing all four objectives of the Government's energy policy, and I suspect that few would disagree with that. But let us consider how the White Paper deals with energy efficiency and compare how it deals with other methods of reducing carbon emissions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) referred, and delivering on the objectives of energy policy.
	At paragraph 4.17 the White Paper sets a target of 10 GW of electricity being generated by combined heat and power by 2010. Renewables are also mentioned. I am keen on those—wind, wave and tidal power—simply because those of us representing Thames estuary constituencies can see the huge benefits that will accrue from such sources of power. My next-door neighbour but one, who is not a mad professor but invents all sorts of things, has huge expertise in such energy matters. I recognise that we are talking about huge Government investment, but I hope that the Government will take renewables seriously and come up with some positive plans on the way forward. At paragraph 4.11, the White Paper sets an aspirational target of 20 per cent. of electricity being generated by renewables by 2020.
	Paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the White Paper deal with energy efficiency. Paragraph 3.5 explains measures that may achieve certain carbon savings by 2010, and paragraph 3.6 gives carbon savings from energy efficiency that can come from households by 2020. But nowhere is it stated that those carbon savings from energy efficiency are targets, objectives, goals, aims or even Government policy. They are simply stated as being what is possible. That is true, but when the Minister replies, will he say whether the achievement of carbon savings from domestic energy efficiency, as stated in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6, is a target, Government policy, or what? I hope that he can clarify that point.
	Let us be clear. There may be different views in the House about targets—we have had a flavour of that this morning—but there can be no different views on the absurd situation in the White Paper whereby what the document itself calls the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing all four objectives is treated less favourably than other ways of delivering energy policy. That is crazy. I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation.
	That is why clause 2 is fundamental. It places on the Government a duty to take reasonable steps to move towards achieving the energy efficiency targets recommended by the performance and innovation unit of the Cabinet Office, also backed by the Sustainable Development Commission and the Energy Saving Trust. That is particularly important. Again I ask whether the Minister will confirm that the Government support those targets. Energy efficiency is not just about reducing carbon dioxide, it is also about home warmth. In fact, it is the one policy approach that can do both. Cutting carbon dioxide can end fuel poverty.
	Clause 6 requires local authorities to contribute to ending fuel poverty when carrying out their functions under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. That is necessary because I am alarmed by what is happening on fuel poverty. The Act that I was privileged to pioneer through the House places on the Government a duty to end the disgrace of cold homes, but what is happening? There are three serious concerns about the measure.
	Chapter 8 of the White Paper specifically deals with fuel poverty, but it fiddles the definition so as to define at least 1 million people as no longer being in fuel poverty. For goodness' sake, when we considered the previous Bill in Committee, we spent a great deal of time on the definition of fuel poverty. I had no idea that the Government would not only ignore that definition, but suddenly change it so that 1 million people were no longer included. Those people will still live in cold homes, but they will have been defined out of the problem.
	How did that happen? The answer is simple. The standard definition of fuel poverty is that it exists where a household needs to spend 10 per cent. of disposable income—income after housing costs—on trying to keep warm. I pay warm tribute to the Minister for the Environment, who was absolutely magnificent in his support of the previous Bill, with which I was delighted to be associated. For instance, he gave repeated assurances to the National Energy Action conference in September 2001 that fuel poverty would be ended on the basis of the specific definition that we agreed in Committee. However, the White Paper completely ignores that definition and talks of ending fuel poverty only on the basis of the Government's new and bogus definition, under which a household needs to spend 10 per cent. of total income to keep warm. That is not the same as disposable income. Thus, 1 million people are, by sleight of hand, removed from fuel poverty.
	The second of my three concerns is about social housing. Fuel poverty in all social housing has to be ended by 2010 in the strategy drawn up under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. To achieve that, the Government have required all social housing to meet a decency standard by 2010, but that standard is set so low—for instance, loft insulation standards are one quarter of those required by the building regulations—that National Energy Action estimates that 1 million households are currently in social housing that complies with those low standards, but are clearly still in fuel poverty. Another 1 million people are therefore defined out of suffering from fuel poverty. The White Paper does not deal with that issue at all.
	Finally, the recent first annual report of the Government Fuel Poverty Advisory Group clearly states that resources will need to be increased by at least 50 per cent. if fuel poverty is to be ended in vulnerable sectors—old people, disabled people and families with young children—by 2010. I again ask the Minister whether he has seen that advice, as the White Paper makes absolutely no reference to it. There are enormous holes in the White Paper, and as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, they are plugged by the Bill that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is piloting through the House.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has been addressing fuel poverty. Does he accept that that issue is relevant in the context of council tax poverty for pensioners? If pensioners have to pay significantly more than 10 per cent. of their income in council tax, they will have less money to spend on keeping their homes warm.

David Amess: I think that Madam Deputy Speaker would not entirely welcome my being seduced by my hon. Friend's invitation to stick the boot into the Government about the shift in resources from the south to the north, but I am at one with him in his basic premise.
	I am sure that the Minister realises that there is widespread support for the Bill among all political parties, but the key to ensuring that it is meaningful lies entirely with the Government. I hope that he will pass to his hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East the message that no attempt whatever will be made to water down his aspirations when the Bill moves into Committee. I wholeheartedly commend the Bill to the House.

Tom Cox: Like other speakers, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on his luck in being able to present the Bill and on his presentation to the House this morning. I intend to be very brief, because I realise that other colleagues wish to speak in this important debate, and I shall concentrate on clause 2, which refers to domestic energy efficiency.
	I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), as I am sure we all did, and I agree with much of what he said. All of us know that the more a home is insulated, whether in the loft, walls, windows or doors, the better it is for the person who lives in the property and for energy saving. At present, there are two early-day motions on the Order Paper dealing with this matter to which I want to refer. Early-day motion 79, which is headed "Reduction of VAT on Energy Saving Materials", calls for a reduction in VAT on such materials to 5 per cent., although many would say that they should be zero rated. It would be interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister just what the Government's view is on that motion.
	I put it to the House that it is by taking action on such matters that we can build up public confidence that the Government are committed to the kind of things that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is seeking to achieve in his Bill. Indeed, such aims were shared in the Bill that the hon. Member for Southend, West introduced some time ago. Early-day motion 147, which is entitled "Ending Fuel Poverty", states that
	"resources for fuel poverty programmes will need to be increased by . . . 50 per cent."
	It has been signed by some 180 hon. Members from all parties.
	This week, I received a booklet from Help the Aged—I am sure that all Members of the House will have received it—entitled "Stop pensioner poverty now". On page 8, under the title, "End the outrage of 20,000 avoidable deaths every winter", it says:
	"Despite a government initiative and some useful assistance, 'fuel poverty'—defined as the need to spend more than 10 per cent of your income on fuel to heat your home adequately—is still very common among older people, who often live in cold, damp homes. The current system of means-testing help only for those who receive benefits is not working.
	We urge the Government to adopt a more humane and sensible approach. The Scottish Executive, for example, is installing insulation and central heating in all homes that do not already have it by 2006. Until that happens, many thousands of the vulnerable older citizens of this wealthy nation will die, simply because, in the twenty-first century, we cannot cope with the effects of cold weather."
	I fully support that statement, which reflects what my hon. Friend is seeking to do in clause 2. It makes a major commitment to domestic energy efficiency, and we all know the importance of that. However, we also know how expensive it will prove. How can we expect retired people, who live on low incomes, to find the sort of money that would be involved in installing energy-efficient systems? Who will help them to pay for that? I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will answer that.
	Many people in all our constituencies are retired and on low incomes but have a perfect right to live in a home that has an efficient energy system. The Bill attempts to deal with that. However, such systems cost money and I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to tell us what financial assistance the Government will provide. I have already cited the early-day motion that states that current funding is inadequate.
	Like other Members, I believe that the Bill deserves the House's full support. It is crucial to examine energy needs not only in the immediate but in the long-term future. I have heard the comments about the White Paper. Although I have reservations about it, it contains specific guidelines to which not only the current Government but future Administrations must make a genuine commitment.
	For me, there are two key requirements to fulfilling the future energy efficiency needs of our country. First, the Government must make a genuine commitment. Secondly, they must also provide financial support. It is no good having wonderful ideas such as planning the energy needs of our country up 2050. We must make a commitment and back it up with meaningful, continuing financial provision by the Government and future Governments.
	I am pleased to have made a short contribution to the debate. Again, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East on promoting the Bill. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I want the Bill to receive a Second Reading, go into Committee and, in the course of the year, to become part of this country's legislation.

Alan Whitehead: Many hon. Members have described the Bill as a modest measure. I believe that it is not modest but important. Energy in the future, and especially reducing the amount of carbon dioxide, is not a project. It is not something that we simply do and subsequently leave. We must commit ourselves to it in the long term if we are to achieve the carbon dioxide reductions that the Bill mentions and that are widely acknowledged as necessary to future sustainability.
	The Bill sets out methods whereby targets may be regularly reviewed. However, it would achieve more than that. Setting targets is easy; making them work is harder. Achieving targets is not only a question of money. The architecture of service provision and the framework for providing a utility can help to fulfil a target. The way in which a utility performs within a framework can help with setting a target.
	Clauses 3 and 4 are especially important. Clause 3 exempts combined heat and power from the renewables obligation. In my view, CHP is important for several reasons. Although it is not a renewable, it is a near renewable. It is an immense efficiency improvement on traditional electricity generation and it is also an urban near renewable. Hon. Members have commented on the rural nature of many renewable sources of energy.
	Combined heat and power can be set up in people's back gardens, in neighbourhoods and people's houses. It can power a street of homes right in the middle of cities, where other renewable sources would perhaps be inappropriate. The other urban renewable is photovoltaics and solar power. Combined heat and power can produce a series of small generators in urban areas, putting electricity into the grid. That is part of the future of energy generation.
	Clause 3 exempts CHP generators from having to purchase renewable obligation certificates. That is an important step forward in generating the market. Combined heat and power is not experimental technology; it is market ready. It simply needs a fair wind to ensure that it works to provide the benefits that many hon. Members believe can be derived from a vision of large-scale installation of small and medium CHP generators across our urban landscape.

Brian White: When the Utilities Act 2000 was being considered, the Government did not intend to place a renewables obligation on CHP. That was down to drafting and it was not spotted at the time. It was therefore a mistake that needs rectifying.

Alan Whitehead: It needs to be rectified whether it was a mistake or not. I hope that the Bill will complete its passage with clause 3 intact.
	Clause 4 is important to making targets work. It places a sustainability requirement on the regulator. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). In introducing the new electricity trading arrangements, the regulator's actions appear to run contrary to many of our aspirations, which are set out in the energy White Paper, on progressing with sustainable electricity generation. It is essential that those policies go hand in hand. The electricity generation market's framework should move towards rather than away from sustainability. Clause 4 is important because it introduces the framework whereby we embed and support moves towards sustainability in the electricity generating market.
	When people switch electricity on and off, they should be switching increasing amounts of renewable electricity. That should be a target. If that process is embedded in people's lives and they make the country more sustainable in terms of energy, we will have secured a victory.
	The Bill is an important step towards achieving our goal. I warmly support it and hope that it receives a Second Reading.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). We both once had a common interest in Southampton and the important work in that city on energy conservation. It was sad that the geothermal project in Southampton never worked in the long run.

Alan Whitehead: I must contradict the hon. Gentleman. Geothermal energy now heats most of the city centre, including the college of higher education, the civic centre, the health centre and supermarkets. It is an astoundingly successful example of a renewable energy source that municipal enterprise has taken up and made to work throughout the city. It is a good example of what the Bill might encourage.

Christopher Chope: I stand corrected. That shows the danger of referring to the city that one had the pleasure of representing more than 10 years ago. I was always enthusiastic about the project and I am delighted that it is so successful. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman needed my intervention in order to make that point in this debate. Similarly, he made a good point on clause 3 in relation to the exemption of combined heat and power from the renewables obligation.
	Another point that I would throw into the debate is the issue of solar-powered heating. When new construction, particularly of social housing, takes place, we are not as imaginative as many overseas countries in incorporating systems that enable water to be heated by solar power. The Government are heavily into subsidising and promoting solar energy, but converting solar rays into energy requires much more expensive technology than using the sun to heat water. I hope that we shall see more emphasis on this issue from the Government and more financial incentives for investment in solar-powered heating, rather than just in solar energy. A company based in my constituency, Global Solutions, has been lobbying strongly for such an outcome. Perhaps that could be spelled out more clearly in clause 1(2) when the Bill goes into Committee.
	I was also interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Going back even further than 10 years, I used to be a member of Wandsworth council. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the difficulties that elderly people are in at the moment, particularly those who are just above the benefit level. He said that the current system of means testing meant that those people found it very hard to be able to afford to invest in systems that would enable them to have more fuel-efficient homes. If that is true in Tooting, which is part of Wandsworth—even after 1 May, a band D home in Wandsworth will be paying about £600 less per year in council tax than a band D property in Dorset—I am sure that hon. Members will realise how much more difficult it is for pensioners in those parts of the country that are not blessed with councils that have kept the council tax down as much as they have in Wandsworth or Westminster.
	One of the most interesting speeches today was made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who made a devastating critique of the White Paper. I am sure that I share with the whole House the sense of anticipation at the forthcoming publication of the Select Committee on Science and Technology report next Thursday. We shall wait to see whether it sets out a coherent, affordable and workable energy policy. I am sure that the Government will be very grateful to the Committee for the work that it has done. To describe a White Paper produced by one's own Government as "policy free" was brave, if not reckless, of the hon. Gentleman. The Government should, however, take his comments seriously, because he obviously comes to the debate with an enormous amount of experience and expertise.
	I had a disagreement with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown about the relevance of the pricing of electricity, but I think that he was talking about the wholesale price of electricity in Denmark and in this country. I, however, am concerned about the retail price, particularly in the context of elderly people and others being able to live in warm homes. The Government have already said that, as a result of the emphasis being put on renewables, there might be a need for individual domestic consumers of electricity to pay up to 15 per cent. more. In Denmark, they have to pay more than 70 per cent. more. There is obviously a higher proportion of energy generated by renewables there; it has the kind of level that is aspired to by many in the House and is referred to in clause 1 of the Bill. We should not think in those terms, however, without thinking through the consequences for the end users of our domestic power. That is particularly relevant in the context of fuel poverty, and pension and council tax poverty.

Desmond Turner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the differential between electricity pricing here and in Denmark is not simply to be accounted for by the higher percentage of wind power in Denmark? It accounts for only about 15 per cent. there. Account must also be taken of the fact that Denmark does not have access to the cheap gas and coal supplies that we do; it has to import them. That is the principal reason for the higher electricity prices in Denmark.

Christopher Chope: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about that. All that I can say is that I have a letter here from quite a distinguished constituent of mine who used to work in the energy industry and who is still very much involved with energy issues. He thinks that one of the main reasons for the very high price of electricity in Denmark is its dependence on wind power. Perhaps we shall have time to ascertain the real truth about this issue in due course. The fact that it has such a degree of wind power generation certainly adds to the costs.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown was very disparaging about the Government's target setting. He thought that it would be useful if we were able to bring the Government to book once a year by forcing them to produce a report. Although I am extremely sceptical about the virtue of producing reports just for the sake of it, if it were an additional way of holding the Government to account, I should go along with it. The trouble is that the Government wriggle when faced with targets and aspirations. Even in the Bill, clause 1(a) contains a reference to
	"those measure that it intends to take to move towards"
	certain targets, rather than to bring them about.
	During this time of Lent, some people will have set themselves targets for reducing their weight, their alcohol intake or other such things. Those are firm targets, and it would not be sufficient simply to say, "I have moved towards my target by losing a pound in weight" if I had set out to lose a stone and a half. By using clever language, the Government have been able to get themselves off the hook in terms of the firm targets that were set—as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) said—in the manifestos that they produced at the last general election and the one before that.
	My biggest concern about what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said is that he asserted that the Bill was not an attack on the nuclear energy option. If that is so, I hope that when the Bill goes into Committee, he will include—specifically in clause 1(2)—a reference to the contribution that nuclear power can make to the reduction in CO2 emissions. To exclude the nuclear contribution would be to make our task extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Apart from anything else, the cost of nuclear energy is now becoming much more competitive. Before the privatisation of British Energy, the cost of nuclear electricity was 2.37p per kWh.

Desmond Turner: If the generation costs of nuclear power have become so competitive, why did British Energy have to be bailed out?

Christopher Chope: British Energy had to be bailed out because of its totally one-sided long-term contract with BNFL, which it was tied into by the Government. It had no option on that, and in my view BNFL was bleeding British Energy dry. Indeed, it is significant now that, because of the virtual bankruptcy of British Energy, there has had to be a renegotiation of the contract with BNFL.
	As a result of that, when the new contract comes into place from 1 April, it will extend throughout the lifetime of the nuclear plants and ensure that the cash operating costs of UK nuclear stations, assuming the normal output of 67 terawatt hours—tWh—per annum, will fall to 1.45p per kWh, which, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown may be interested to know, will give an operating profit of £100 per MW against the losses of £4 per MW that reduced British Energy to virtual bankruptcy in the recent past. That is why the cost of nuclear electricity was not even lower and, coupled with the neater trading arrangements, it put British Energy in those dire straits.
	The Government have recognised that, in the short term, they could not possibly accept the bankruptcy and closure of British Energy, as that would reduce generating capacity by about 25 per cent., which is about what is produced by nuclear. In answering questions from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on 24 March, the Minister for Energy and Construction—I share the concern of others in the House that he is not with us to respond to the debate—said that nuclear produced 22 per cent. of electricity in 2002 from 14 plants, that 32 per cent. came from coal and 1 per cent. from oil. The targets for reducing CO2 emissions makes one immediately think that it would be more sensible to replace coal-generated electricity with nuclear rather than replacing nuclear with renewables. The Bill needs to be a lot more explicit about the important role that nuclear can play in enabling us to meet the self-imposed obligation of cutting CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010 based on 1990 levels.
	I do not want to speak for much longer, but the points raised on fuel poverty warrant further comment from me. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said that cold homes are the most important issue that we are addressing, and I agree with that wholeheartedly, so the Government's change to the definition of fuel poverty does them no credit whatever, although it is typical of how they set themselves targets that cannot be met and then change the definition of that target. Recently, a number of documents have been produced—by the Home Office in particular this week—in which the Government have effectively changed the definition of targets that they have set themselves. This is a blatant example of changing the set target, and it effectively strands an additional 1 million people, who cannot be embraced by the agenda on eliminating fuel poverty, which the Government have previously espoused.
	This is a serious issue and I hope that the Minister ensures that the Government think again. Indeed, the Bill presents the opportunity to table an amendment redefining fuel poverty in the way that it was originally defined and putting that on the statute book. That, too, must be addressed in Committee.
	The Bill has shortcomings, and the most fundamental is that targets would be set but there would be no sanctions. If the Government are prepared to impose sanctions against local authorities or other organisations that do not comply with targets that they have set, why can the Government be absolved from responsibility and liability if they fail to meet targets set by Parliament? That is my first concern.
	My second concern is that the Bill is far too equivocal on the role of nuclear. I hope that amendments in Committee will enable it to re-emphasise that we believe fuel poverty is so important that it should be defined as it always was defined. We should recognise the importance of allowing our elderly people and the infirm to be able to have warm homes at affordable prices. That will be promoted if we ensure that we have good value nuclear power rather than closing down that nuclear generating capability and replacing it with much more expensive and, in my view, more environmentally intrusive windmills.

Andrew Stunell: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on his success in the ballot and, even more, on taking up such an important topic for legislation. There is no doubt that a good sustainable energy policy is the key to leaving a sustainable planet for future generations as well as to us enjoying sustainable prosperity in the meantime. The production of the Bill is a credit to the hon. Gentleman and to those who are working with him and sponsoring it.
	I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on upstaging his own Government—a point that a number of other Members have already made. So far, they have needed four Energy Ministers in five years to try to implement three different energy policies—quite often two at the same time, I may say. Apparently, we are about to embark on a fourth. Three years after the publication of the findings of the royal commission on environmental pollution, one year after the publication of the performance and innovation unit report and some months after the publication of the energy White Paper, we are still waiting for the Government to produce the money, the legislation and the vision that would lead to us having a sustainable energy policy. From that point of view, the hon. Gentleman has done the public and Parliament a service in introducing his Bill.
	If, as it seems, the hon. Gentleman has secured the Government's support, his achievement is all the more remarkable, although in view of what has happened to previous Bills dealing with this topic, finding such friends for it sows the first seeds of doubt about just how good and how radical the Bill is. The Bill is timely, however, as we need a sustainable energy policy if we are to come anywhere near achieving our Kyoto commitments and the reduction in CO2 outputs recommended as a minimum by the royal commission and if we are to do anything like enough to avoid damaging our environment and, indeed, that of the planet.
	The Bill is also aimed at the right problems. It is clear in setting out what needs to be done in terms of producing energy and power, particularly electricity, and also the efficient use of power. Its intentions are of the best but the question is: will it be effective? Hon. Members have explained the Bill's provisions extensively. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and others have outlined its advantages. Perhaps the most important thing it does is to create a new duty to have a sustainable energy policy. While the need for that may seem self-evident, plenty of commentators still doubt the need either for an energy policy or for a sustainable one. If the Bill makes progress, it will, I hope, nail that fallacy.
	The Bill sets long-term targets for sustainable energy production, which is a good thing. It rightly identifies many technologies and allocates to them their respective roles. It is important to recognise that some technologies are at or very near the market and others, while very promising, are a long way short of being commercial. I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will recognise that one cannot have a once-and-for-all fix of a mixture of technologies. One has to look at the science, the technology and the market and ensure that as appropriate each technology plays its role.
	The Bill sets out action to conserve energy, in particular the huge waste of energy in the domestic sector. There are plenty of good estimates to suggest that, even by the implementation of quite routine measures, most households could save about 30 per cent. of the energy that they use, and in doing so improve their quality of life. People would not have to sit there shivering and freezing in the cold.
	There is a huge amount that can be done. We should go beyond the routine and look at some of the trial and pilot projects that there are—for example, the Beddington zero energy, or BEDZED, project in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), which I visited. If we work at it hard, it is possible to achieve zero carbon dioxide emissions and very low energy consumption.
	All those things are in the Bill and are certainly good. My hon. Friends and I will support the Bill but we want it to be strengthened. I hope that in Committee it can be provided with additional teeth, rather than going into Committee and coming out with just a pair of gums, as happened with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). I hope that clause 2, about which the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) spoke strongly and powerfully, will be strengthened.
	It is important to recognise that how to achieve an improvement in domestic energy efficiency is well understood. There is no magic about what needs to be done. For 30 years, Governments have had schemes to save it, to switch off the lights, to do this, that and the other but smooth words and slogans are not enough. It is a pity that clause 2 is stuck with words like "may" rather than "shall" and that it talks about encouraging, offering guidance and promoting schemes when what we need is decisive action within a clear policy framework and tough regulatory action supported by financial and fiscal measures.
	We must change the culture. We are in the bizarre situation in which all of us know that we could save energy in our homes, thereby saving money and probably improving the quality of our lives, but there are no incentives, we do not have the culture right, we are not doing it properly. Clause 2, particularly clause 2(1), is somewhat tepid and falls into the same trap as the failed "save it" campaign.
	There are two or three measures that would in the longer term significantly improve domestic energy conservation and efficiency and benefit us all. One is to have a requirement relating to the replacement of central heating boilers. About 1 million central heating boilers a year are replaced but there are no effective energy efficiency standards relating to them. A new generation of micro combined heat and power central heating boilers is being developed and coming on to the market. They will not only heat the home but generate electricity. The PIU report identified that micro-CHP would be the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from homes. A simple regulatory requirement ensuring that central heating boilers were replaced by high-efficiency micro CHP boilers would be my clear preference. In 20 years it would transform the energy outputs of our homes. One could make the same point about white goods, where the efficiency standards are far too low, not achieving the best available options.
	There is another matter of concern. There should be a simple regulatory requirement whereby meters are replaced by two-way meters. About 1 million meters are replaced each year. Two-way metering would make the implementation of micro-CHP easier and lay the foundations for photovoltaics in a subsequent era.
	Building standards, although alluded to in the Bill, need highlighting further. All the proposals relating to domestic efficiency not only reduce carbon dioxide emissions but are vital in tackling fuel poverty. I will not go over the matters raised by other hon. Members but clearly the elimination of fuel poverty is already a Government target and the way to do it is clearly understood: the efficiency of our homes should be improved. I hope that the Bill's sponsors will be ready to accept some beefing up in those areas when the Bill gets to Committee, because pound for pound there is no doubt that improving efficiency is the way best way of cutting carbon dioxide emissions. There should be specific proposals on that in the Bill, as there are in clause 1 on energy sources.
	I welcome clause 4, which amends the Utilities Act 2000 relating to the duties of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—not least because it is similar to the amendments that I tabled during the Committee stage of the Utilities Bill three years ago. The subsequent rigid adherence of Ofgem to the most blinkered and narrow interpretation of market philosophy has reduced wholesale electricity prices, although it has not done that much for retail prices, but also undercut investment in the electricity industry. It has undermined combined heat and power and placed small generators and renewable producers at a serious disadvantage. Getting clause 4 through and giving Ofgem a broader remit will be of great importance.
	The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It is in many ways an excellent attempt at delivering a long overdue policy for this country. I hope that we can strengthen a few of its weaknesses in Committee. In particular I hope that it can escape the pruning and the predations to which private Members' Bills are often subjected in Committee, often masterminded by the civil servants. I hope that the House will support the Bill today and maintain its determination to see a strong Bill emerge from Committee and pass into law.

Crispin Blunt: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on securing his place in the ballot and choosing this topic. I congratulate him also on the breadth of support he has achieved, not only from the dozens of organisations that have put their names to the Bill, but from Members across the House. Two of my hon. Friends have spoken eloquently in support of the Bill and I confirm that the Conservative party wishes to see it go into Committee.
	The speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) was welcome. He said that we needed to restore credibility to the process after what had happened to his Bill. He did restore credibility to the process, but also to himself. He produced a withering demolition job, although he said he would not, of the inadequacies of the energy White Paper. His analysis sits at the core of the dilemma facing the Government.
	The Government have decided to proceed by a series of targets and statements in the White Paper, and they have to be held to account for what they say they are going to achieve. The Government's problem was illustrated by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and by the promoter of the Bill; the Government cannot deliver what they intend. There are dozens of policy instruments but the policy framework is non-existent. That is why I found it impossible to support early-day motion 910 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown in support of his Bill. Frankly, there is no policy framework and I am not sure how he could include that in the first line of his early-day motion. It could only have been an attempt to secure the good will of the Government. There is hope for the hon. Gentleman that he will get his Bill through this place because the Bill we are debating today gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State to get her hands on money that she would otherwise not have been able to spend.
	The dilemma for the Government is whether to go for a liberal market in energy or to have a regulated and directed set of policies. The Government have fallen between two stools. The House will not be surprised to hear that the Conservative party favours a liberal market solution, but that market must operate within a framework. The absence of such a framework means that the Government cannot deliver what they have set out.
	The United Kingdom cannot do this alone. The main aim is to protect our planet by dealing with emissions into the atmosphere. That is the overriding environmental threat. That should provide the framework within which energy policy sits and that is what we intend to provide when we provide our response to the energy White Paper and produce our own energy policy. In the absence of a framework, we will have a gentleman in Whitehall telling everyone how much is to be produced by renewables, coal, gas and the rest. As we have seen, there has been a conspicuous lack of success with such schemes.
	I note that the Minister for Energy and Construction is not here and understand that he is in Shetland meeting the Norwegian Minister in a long-standing engagement to discuss arrangements for the future supply of gas to the United Kingdom. I have had the privilege of dealing with energy policy since last July and I have concluded that issues of renewables and nuclear generation are interesting and that gas is important. Gas is rapidly taking the lead position in this country's energy market. I am loth to criticise the Minister for Energy and Construction for not being here to reply to the debate when his discussions with the Norwegian Minister are essential to the economic success of the United Kingdom.
	I should like to deal in detail with the problems of definition in the Bill. Clause 8 says
	"'sustainable energy policy' means measures which reduce emissions of carbon and methane and promote reductions in the use of energy, and, for the avoidance of doubt, does not include nuclear power, and the term 'sustainable energy' shall be considered accordingly."
	There have been a number of criticisms of that definition and we must get it right. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has not got it right yet. There is no reference to the cost of energy, and a sustainable policy has to be one that the nation can afford. That has to be balanced with the environmental objectives.
	I am not sure that a definition necessarily revolves around a reduction in the use of energy. We are faced with a relentless increase in energy consumed in the UK, about 1 per cent. a year. That is not the problem. The problem is what is associated with it—the emissions into the environment. If we are talking about nuclear generation, those emissions are the radioactive waste that comes from that process. We must ask ourselves fundamental questions about how we try to improve the environment. It is not necessarily a question of reducing the consumption of energy. We must deal with the consequences of that energy consumption.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sidney Chapman), in supporting this Bill, reminded us of the commitments in the Labour party's manifesto. That is always a useful thing to do when those commitments are not being met. He then gave the House his definition of sustainable development, which I thought was as good as one could get in seven words. That is hardly surprising when we consider that he has the expertise of being the chairman of the committee in the Council of Europe. He also made the important point that it is the mark of a civilised society that people should have warm homes. The efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)—especially in his private Member's Bill—are to be commended on that issue.
	These debates offer one the opportunity to listen and then think about what may be better policy solutions to the objectives that we all share. On the basis of the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and others, I am beginning to think that we should be considering absolute standards of fuel poverty rather than relative standards of fuel poverty. For example, we should ensure that every home in the country—where, because of the minimum income guarantee, everyone has a basic income—can be heated by 10 per cent. of the disposable income in the home, to use the definition of fuel poverty. If we set that as a standard to be achieved in housing stock throughout the United Kingdom, it would be an absolute standard to work towards. We could then have targets that were based on a proper audit of the quality of the country's housing stock.
	The Bill makes an extremely important contribution to energy efficiency by giving Government the targets that are so painfully obviously absent from the White Paper. The Association for the Conservation of Energy, in the welcome briefing that it provided for hon. Members, said:
	"This makes it all the more perplexing that the White Paper contains no firm target for improving energy efficiency. It also seems clear that the Government does not have the 'commitment' to energy efficiency of which Brian Wilson spoke."
	The briefing quotes the Environmental Audit Committee's recommendation that there should be a sustainable hierarchy in energy, parallel to that in waste. It goes on to say:
	"By contrast, the White Paper seems to have adopted a reverse hierarchy. It has set a firm target for CHP . . . an aspirational target for renewables . . . and no target at all for energy efficiency."
	This Bill corrects that absence of a target, which is welcome.
	The aspiration on renewables is given in paragraph 4.11 of the White Paper. The Government have already said that the target of 10 per cent. is challenging, but at least that target is backed up by the policy of the renewables obligation. However, we have to ask whether the targets are appropriate. The Government have set the aspiration of a 10 per cent. contribution by renewables to our electricity generation by 2010, and a 20 per cent. contribution by 2020. That gives one the rather horrid feeling that the Government are using a wet finger in the air to judge what the targets should be.
	The fundamental question to ask is this: why do we want renewable energy to supply a share of our electricity? Is it because we want to reduce CO2 emissions? If that is the fundamental reason, are there better ways of doing it? Evidence was given to the Government by Ofgem that, because of the cost of reducing CO2 emissions by focusing on renewables, it would be economic nonsense. It is a hugely expensive way of reducing CO2 emissions. It has been pointed out that achieving energy efficiency is a much more effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. We need to consider policy in the round and decide what the roles of gas, coal, nuclear generation and renewables will be within a framework that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gases.
	This Government's record on combined heat and power is, of course, appalling. It is extraordinary that, although there is no target for energy efficiency in the White Paper, there is a firm target for CHP—but absolutely no measures in place to achieve it. David Green, the director of the Combined Heat and Power Association, welcomed the White Paper with the words:
	"There is a complete absence in the White Paper of any significant new measures to reduce the damage done to Britain's green generators over the last three years by weak and inconsistent delivery of Government policies."
	Page 47 of the White Paper is full of lines such as:
	"we will undertake a review of the existing guidance on information";
	"we will continue to emphasise the benefits of CHP";
	"We will work with OFGEM to keep these developments under review";
	"Over the coming months we will consider the nature and extent of such a target or targets and announce our conclusions";
	"as we consider and consult on the expansion of the energy efficiency commitment . . . we will explore the opportunities for incentivising CHP technologies";
	and
	"We have invited the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust to review their current and future programmes".
	All that amounts to nothing but hot air. Apparently, however, there is one undertaking in the White Paper that the Government
	"will support field trials designed to evaluate the benefits of micro-CHP".
	That is very exciting: a measure actually in the White Paper. I tabled a written question to find out exactly what the White Paper would do, and what was new. By happy coincidence—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I see some relevance but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now relate his remarks to the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: Of course, my comments are related to the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the Bill, in clause 1(a)(ii) asks for
	"the achievement of the generation of 10GW of electricity by combined heat and power by the end of 2010 and a further 10GW by 2020".
	If no policies are being pursued by the Government to advance combined heat and power, and CHP has undergone a total disaster in the last three years, I hope that I am entitled to draw attention to that and to the fact that this Bill is inviting us to put on the statute book an analysis of the Government's policy that shows that they are entirely failing in that regard. It is therefore important to draw attention to the Government's statement in the White Paper that, as a new policy, they will
	"support field trials designed to evaluate the benefits of micro-CHP".
	I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she intends to meet her commitments to support such field trials, given what is on page 48 of the energy White Paper, beyond the Government's fuel poverty strategy. I asked her what was new. The answer from the Minister responsible was as follows:
	"I understand"—
	"understand" not "know"—
	"that The Carbon Trust will be working with the Energy Saving Trust and other stakeholders, including DEFRA, to undertake a major field trial for micro-CHP in order to evaluate the potential benefits this innovative technology has to offer. The trial will aim to feature a range of technologies and end use applications."—[Official Report, 27 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 309–10W.]
	That was happening already. There is nothing new in the White Paper.
	I concur absolutely with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on the potential importance of micro-CHP. There are about 18 million boilers in homes in this country, which are replaced at the rate of about once every 20 years—we are therefore talking about 1 million boilers a year—and the Government have done their analysis of the boiler market with the comparison between conventional and condensing boilers that appears in the White Paper. As there has been a relative failure to introduce condensing boilers in the United Kingdom, a huge opportunity exists for energy saving and CHP—two key elements of the hon. Gentleman's Bill—by moving from a country that relies largely on conventional boilers in the home to one that can move to micro-CHP plants, which are condensing boilers that also generate electricity.

Andrew Stunell: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I fully agree with him. Would he accept that putting a regulatory requirement on Ofgem would be a useful way of approaching the matter and would go a long way towards tackling the issues that he raises?

Crispin Blunt: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In terms of how we achieve the objective, however, I part company with him. I think that there should be some form of trades description on the word "liberal" because what he proposes would be utterly illiberal and would direct people to install such boilers. I believe in the operation of the market. We should do our best to take the horse to water but if it will not drink, we should not force it to do so. The opportunity should be there, however, to enable micro-CHP to succeed in the market. I would therefore seek to add one or two things to the Bill in Committee. First, however, we should understand the scale of the potential contribution of domestic micro-CHP. The technology behind the product that will be launched by Microgen toward the end of the year will mean that a boiler can produce about 1 kW of electricity. In about five years, fuel cell technology is likely to be sufficiently developed to allow micro-CHP plants to produce about 4 kW. If such plants were put into half the homes in the country during the 17 years up to 2020, the generating capacity of the United Kingdom could be increased by about 40 GW. As electricity consumption in the UK is just over 50 GW, one starts to appreciate the scale of the system's potential. There would be further important side benefits, such as the resilience of our electricity generation capacity.
	Inevitably, most micro-CHP plants will operate on natural gas, which relates to the importance of the Minister for Energy and Construction's attempts to secure our future access to gas, as we start to import it. However, generating electricity in the home is about twice as efficient as generating it at a central plant and transmitting it throughout the country. The issue is important and if the House gives the Bill its Second Reading—there seems to be little opposition floating around at the moment—I shall table amendments in Committee so that it would not only exempt CHP from the renewables obligation, but extend the benefits of the renewables obligation to micro-CHP that is installed in people's homes by energy service companies. That would boost micro-CHP, which is a necessary step because it could make an enormous contribution to energy efficiency. I know that it is not strictly a renewable but everyone knows that the renewables obligation will not be achieved because we will not achieve 10 per cent. of generation from renewables by 2010, given the current situation. My suggestion would represent a proper use of the available resources that are identified in the scope of the present renewables obligation.
	There are omissions from the Bill. Clause 1(2) would require the Government to report on the respective roles of possible contributions to a sustainable energy policy. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has been too purist by considering only renewables, energy efficiency and CHP. We must look to the future of the hydrogen economy and the contribution of fuel cells because that could make the most enormous contribution to help us to meet our climate change targets. If fuel cell technology were successfully rolled out, we could easily achieve the royal commission on environmental pollution's target, provided that we do not produce hydrogen by burning coal.
	Nuclear fusion would be a way to generate electricity in order to produce hydrogen. That might be a cleaner technology than nuclear fission because it would produce less waste. The successful introduction of that technology could radically change the way in which electricity is generated, and it should not be ignored. The Government should be invited to report on the progress of nuclear fusion development in the way in which they would report on other technologies, and I shall table an amendment to that effect in Committee.
	I look forward to hearing in more detail what clause 5 will achieve and why the Government need that measure to obtain access to the money that I mentioned. As I said, we will want to debate clause 8 and, hopefully, to amend the definition of a sustainable energy policy so that it is more robust and takes account of affordability and economic efficiency as well as the absolute necessity of protecting the environment.
	The Bill holds to account a Government whose record on manipulating targets has discredited public administration and is, perhaps, shown at its worst by the subordination of the Government's information service to Alastair Campbell. That is the disgraceful culmination of the process of twisting the presentation of Government statistics. Any measure that holds the Government to account for their overblown rhetoric is welcome, and that is why the Opposition support the Bill in principle.

Nigel Griffiths: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on his introduction of a Bill on such an important subject. I also convey to the House the apologies of the Minister for Energy and Construction; I think that the House has accepted the explanation for his absence.
	Before becoming a Minister, I represented Friends of the Earth at the international sustainable development conference in Berlin. Like many Members who have spoken, I have a long-standing interest in these matters. I was pleased to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), the distinguished chairman of the Council of Europe sustainable development committee. I can gladden his heart by saying that my private office at the Department of Trade and Industry, which achieved the highest standards in Whitehall, was rewarded by a trip to Bilbao to see that great architectural achievement, the Guggenheim. It is great to have an architect of the hon. Gentleman's distinction in the House.
	Turning to the Bill, we agree that there is a need to report progress on policy goals, as required by clause 1. We, the Government, have committed ourselves to producing an annual progress report, and we are willing for that to become a legal requirement. Households account for about 5 million tonnes of the yearly carbon dioxide saving that we expect to make, through energy efficiency, by 2010, and I understand that that is equivalent to the savings called for in clause 2.
	I was greatly heartened by the interest in, and concern about, fuel poverty expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I know that every Member will join me in welcoming the fact that around 10,000 people received the single biggest boost in the alleviation of fuel poverty—the £200 winter fuel payment, which is now in its third year.
	We agree on the importance of promoting energy efficiency, which is the broad intention of clause 2. The Government are concerned not to restrict our flexibility in pursuing an overall sustainable energy goal in the most effective way. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East spoke of some of the pitfalls of setting targets, but I am confident that, through further discussion, we will be able to find a way forward that has his broad agreement and that of the House.
	The proposed amendments to the Electricity Act 1999 in clause 3 would have two effects. It would redefine CHP as a sustainable energy source under the renewables obligation and exclude electricity generated using CHP from the calculation that determines how much renewable electricity each supplier must buy under it. There is a genuine worry that that might undermine the achievement of our renewables target, so I am reluctant to support this provision on that basis. We are committed to achieving the 2010 CHP target, but redefining CHP as renewable under the obligation would wipe out the market created for renewables. Existing CHP schemes, the House will be pleased to know, generate far more electricity than the current obligation.
	The other proposal to exclude CHP from the baseline on which each supplier's obligation is calculated would provide a lower level of support for CHP, worth about 10 per cent. of the subsidy for renewables in 2010. It would reduce the size of the renewables market under the obligation by as much as 13 per cent., therefore threatening our renewables target and undermining industry confidence and investment.
	The main purpose of clause 4, which deals with amendments to the Utilities Act 2000, is to require Ofgem to undertake environmental impact assessments for its proposals. Ofgem has undertaken to produce regulatory impact assessments, including environmental impact assessments, for all significant new policies. The Government want to provide statutory backing for those assessments. I shall ensure that Department of Trade and Industry officials draw the criticisms of Ofgem made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and other hon. Members to the director general's attention for him to deal with.
	Clause 5 deals with the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. The Government greatly welcome the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East in the clause for powers to be taken to use surplus funds in the fossil fuel levy. We have estimated that the income could reach as much as £350 million in total by 2010. The provisions in the Bill would provide a legal basis for putting that money to good use. Making the funds available to support schemes promoting our sustainable energy goals is a proposal that the Government fully endorse. We are glad that my hon. Friend included that in his proposals and we intend to work closely with him to ensure that we get the detail right.
	Clause 6 deals with amendments to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which was touched on by several hon. Members. The proposed amendment to section 5 of that Act reflects similar proposals brought forward in an amendment to the sadly unsuccessful Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) last year. Subject to further detailed considerations of the wording, the Government expect to be able to support the clause.
	Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East on introducing the Bill. I confirm that, subject to the caveats that I have summarised, the Government are prepared to support the Bill and we look forward to working with him in Committee to deal with specific points.

Win Griffiths: It sounds as if my hon. Friend is coming to the end of his remarks. He made one brief mention of renewables earlier. I invite him to let the Minister for Energy and Construction know that myself, some other hon. Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) would like to meet members of the Department to discuss tidal energy. We believe that tidal energy lagoons could play a significant role in meeting the Government's renewables targets.

Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and giving me a chance to praise the work of my most distinguished constituent, Stephen Salter, whose pioneering work did not receive the recognition and support that it should have done in the 1960s and 1970s. I will draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction to my hon. Friend's comments. As a highly co-operative Minister, I am sure that he will want to facilitate that. Again, I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I feel sure that by working together the House can ensure an effective outcome for the Bill.

Brian White: With the leave of the House, I would like to thank all hon. Members who have contributed to today's debate. I look forward to the Committee, and am sure that we will have some interesting debates there. I thank officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the sustainable energy partnerships for their constructive suggestions. As I said, I look forward to the Committee, and the discussions that we will have there.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Stephen McCabe: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	As some hon. Members will appreciate, this is not just a Second Reading, but a second attempt by Parliament to achieve certain changes. A similar Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) in March 2001. But for the general election that was held in the intervening period, it might have made it to the statute book. My Bill has a simple purpose—to permit a father's name to be entered on the birth certificate when the father has died and the child is conceived as a result of fertility treatment. I hope that hon. Members agree that the Bill is not contentious. All that I seek to do is to ensure that a child, whom the mother and father wanted so much that they sought the assistance of fertility treatment, can have his or her father's name on the birth certificate. I think that that is a basic right—a right to identity; a right to know who we are and where we came from; a right, as one mother put it, to make sure that the birth certificate tells the truth. That is a right that the courts now recognise.
	Such a measure is long overdue. The Bill is limited in scope, and its intention is wholly compassionate. It seeks only symbolic recognition for children who, as the law stands, have no father. It is not concerned with issues of inheritance or succession, nationality or legal status. It simply allows the name of the father to be put on a birth certificate—currently, the law requires the father to remain unknown. I accept that for some people there are serious concerns about the ethics of reproduction and assisted conceptions, but the Bill is solely concerned with the simple and straightforward issue of birth registration. I am happy to accept that deeper philosophical and ethical issues need to be kept under review, particularly given the pace of technological advance, but those issues are not for consideration here. As previously stated, the Bill's only purpose is to permit a man's name to be entered as the child's father on the birth certificate when the child has been conceived after the father's death.
	At present, section 28(6) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 prevents a man from being treated as the father of his child if his child is conceived as a result of using stored sperm or a created embryo after the father's death. Because the law allows sperm to be stored for 39 years, there are understandable concerns about succession and inheritance, and the problems that that might lead to in winding up an estate. The problem that we face now is the unintended consequence of those concerns. Hon. Members will know of mothers and children in the situation that I have described—people who have campaigned long and hard for their children's legitimacy.

Debra Shipley: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of my constituent, Marian Jordan, for taking up the matter and introducing the Bill? Marian Jordan had her son in 1999, but he is not allowed to have his father's name on his birth certificate, even though the father gave consent. The law is surely wrong.

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I acknowledge her long association with the matter, her attempts to bring about legislative change, the support and help that she has given her constituent, and the advice and support that she has given me in the preparation of the Bill.
	We all know of people who have campaigned long and hard on the issue—parents who have campaigned for their children's legitimacy. Those children are loved and wanted. I pay tribute to those people for their courage and determination. It seems doubly unfair for them to lose their loving partner and then to have the existence of that partner denied on the child's birth certificate.
	The Bill is retrospective in so far as it deals not only with future cases, but with existing ones. I understand that 30 to 40 children are in the predicament that I have outlined. That number could grow by five to 10 children a year. There are four specific circumstances in which the Bill might be applied. The first, set out in proposed new subsection (5A), relates to a married couple where the dead husband's previously stored sperm is used or an embryo is created using that sperm. New subsection (5B) covers the same circumstances where the couple were not married. New subsection (5C) relates to a married couple where the embryo was created using donor sperm, and new subsection (5D) applies to an unmarried couple where the embryo was created using donor sperm.
	Diane Blood recently said to me that
	"if the only official document designed a register a child's paternity is a fiction, then it strikes at the heart of family relationships."
	Her sons Liam and Joel are four years old and seven months old, respectively. There are many children like them across the country—children who are growing up in good homes, full of love; children adored by their mothers and grandparents, but growing up without their father. What they do not need is to have their father's identity denied.
	Today we as parliamentarians can help those children. We can help those women, who have already suffered more than most. We can put right a wrong that was never intended. We can spare people such misery in the future. We can ensure that every child, irrespective of how he or she was conceived, has the right to have his or her father's name on the legal birth certificate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Tony Clarke: I congratulate and support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), who is a parliamentarian known for his integrity and compassion. His choice in bringing the Bill back before the House is a credit to that reputation. The Bill deals with a wrong that needs righting as quickly as Parliament will allow, and I hope that his assurance that the Bill does not deal with fertilisation and embryology, but simply ensures that children born to deceased fathers can have their paternity recognised on their birth certificate will be borne in mind by hon. Members in all parts of the House during the Bill's passage.
	This is also an opportunity for us to pay tribute to those families who have fought the case for such a long time, including Marian Jordan, Joanne Tarbuck and, of course, Diane Blood. Diane has fought a long, relentless and courageous campaign since 1995 when her husband Stephen died from bacterial meningitis. She had to fight for the right to conceive her child, and ever since she has had to fight for Stephen to be recognised as the father of Liam and of Joel, the latest addition to the family. That fight took her to the High Court. It does not bring much grace on the House that, in failing to right that wrong in 2001, we forced Diane Blood to go once again through the legal system to fight for the rights of her children.
	In the High Court case, Mr. Justice Sullivan talked about the Government's outright capitulation, and he said that it was not the Department of Health's most shining hour. I hope in a few moments to defend the Department, because while accepting that the Government and Parliament are in the wrong for making Diane Blood seek legal recognition of Stephen as the father of her two children, counsel accepted that the 1990 Act was incompatible with article 8 of the human rights convention, which requires respect for a person's private and family life, and that is why we are here today. We are here because the 1990 Act is in breach of the convention and needs to be corrected.
	That process was costly. It was costly in emotional terms for Diane and for those families who had to wait an extra time to gain recognition from the courts. It was costly in economic terms. Court costs of £20,000 were rightly awarded to Diane. It was also unnecessary. During the Bill's passage in 2000–01, it was only on Third Reading that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is not in the Chamber today, intervened at the very last minute. His intervention was brief, but it was enough to stop the Bill's passage.

Debra Shipley: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House the action of that single Member of Parliament who came in on Third Reading, after the Committee, on which I had the pleasure to serve. That hon. Gentleman had made no speech and given no indication of what he intended, unlike his honourable colleagues who made valid and interesting points. Instead, as my hon. Friend said, in those last few seconds the hon. Gentleman basically blocked what was a supported Bill.

Tony Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Chris Grayling: I believe that it is usually the convention of the House that hostile comments should not be made about hon. Members who are not present. However, the hon. Gentleman would surely accept that it is two years since that event took place, and there has been ample parliamentary time, had the Government chosen to make time available, for the Bill to have passed long ago.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we can now return to the content of the Bill that is before the House.

Tony Clarke: It is not my intent to be hostile. I mean only to put the record straight on previous parliamentary proceedings. It is my belief that we would not be here today were it not for the actions of the hon. Member for New Forest, West. He said at that time that it was a matter of conscience—

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is a matter of courtesy in the House that someone who is to be attacked in person should be given notice of it? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might say whether he did give notice to the hon. Member concerned.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is indeed the case.

Tony Clarke: As I said, I do not wish to be hostile or to attack the hon. Member for New Forest, West. I intend just to put it on the record that this is not a matter of conscience. I am not talking about the hon. Gentleman or his behaviour, but the fact that he decided on that occasion to say that this was a matter of conscience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, this Bill does not deal with aspects of embryology and fertilisation. It simply addresses the fundamental wrong that does not allow a father to be included on the birth certificate of his children after his death.
	I welcome the minor changes that have been made to the original Bill since 2001. In particular, clause 3(6) allows children born prior to the enactment of the Bill the same rights as those born afterwards, but it does not impose on them unnecessary conditions that turn the clock back and ask them to provide evidence that will not be available in many cases. The Government have shown their compassion by making an amendment that can draw a line while allowing those who were previously affected to seek comfort and redress.
	The other issue of great concern in relation to the original Bill was that hon. Members sometimes tried to use it as an opportunity to introduce other measures relating to aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 with which they were unhappy.
	I believe that we have a once-only opportunity for the House to regain its reputation and correct the matter before it returns to the High Court, and I hope that hon. Members across the House will allow the Bill speedy passage in Committee and on Third Reading. I hope that we can right a wrong and that hon. Members will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green on bringing this matter before us so swiftly.

Christopher Chope: I was not going to speak, but in view of the comments of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) about my neighbour and friend—my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—I wish to say that it is absolutely wrong for the sponsors of this Bill and the previous one not to lay some blame and responsibility at the hands of the Government. It was the Minister who said in November 2000 that the Government would introduce legislation on the matter, but nothing was done. As will be apparent today, the issue is not controversial, and the Bill is also very short, so it is amazing that a Government with such a large majority were unable to give the proposal the priority that it should have had. They could have introduced the measure using Government time and without taking up much of the time of the House.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, since the general election the Government have had plenty of time and a large majority that they could have used to introduce such legislation. If they had done so sooner, they would not have received the rap over the knuckles and the very strong criticism in the High Court from Mr. Justice Sullivan on 28 February this year, when he made a declaration of incompatibility and ruled that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which requires respect for a person's family and private life.
	The Government had the opportunity to amend those provisions under fast-track procedures. I do not know whether the Minister will suggest that the Bill that is before us satisfies everything that the High Court had to say in relation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and the Human Rights Act 1998 or whether amendments will have to be made to cover the situation. None the less, it is unfair and unjust to pillory my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, whom I think spoke only for a minute or two, while at the same time giving the impression that the Government have been keen to proceed.

Tony Clarke: I repeat that we have no intention of pillorying or being hostile to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne); we are simply placing on record the confusion that existed in the House between the position that he took at the Dispatch Box in speaking as a Front Bencher, when he decided that the Bill was a matter of conscience, and the comments that he later made to others in saying that he intervened under orders—I think that those were the words that he used with individuals in private. The issue is not about pillorying him, but an attempt to ensure that, this time, the House is as one in ensuring that the Bill receives a speedy passage and a quick conclusion. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I repeat that there is no intention of pillorying or being hostile to the hon. Member for New Forest, West.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that long intervention. Its contents justified the length, and I thank him for putting those comments on the record. I can now sit down.

Andrew Stunell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on promoting this short but important measure. I wish it well.
	As science and medicine advance, hon. Members are increasingly faced with issues about which our predecessors could not even have dreamed. Many are deeply divisive ethical and moral questions, as the debate has shown. Hon. Members are often sharply divided on them, by no means always on party lines.
	Although the Bill clearly relates to such matters, it is much more straightforward. It is needed simply to put right an unintended consequence of the House's first attempts to legislate on a difficult matter. The courts as well as the House have had to struggle to make sense of the new landscape that medicine and science have created. They have worked within existing legislation as well as they could.
	The law in the case that we are considering has produced an unexpected, unwelcome and surely unintended outcome that has had serious consequences, which caused grievous hurt to individuals and families. We should put that right. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, the Bill returns the law to the position where, I suspect, most lay commentators—I am certainly a lay commentator—would have supposed that it was in the first place.
	I shall comment briefly on the matter that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) raised. I hope that the measure is kept as simple as possible in Committee and that there will be no temptation to bolt on people's pet ideas—I was about to say "hobby-horses", but I am not sure whether they can be bolted on—about what should be added to a straightforward measure.
	The Bill deserves support today. It may have one or two rough edges, but they can be smoothed in Committee. I commend the measure to hon. Members and wish it success on its way into law.

Chris Grayling: We have held a brief but important debate on a subject that arouses strong feelings in many people. People undoubtedly feel uncomfortable about such policy, especially since science takes us into realms that previous generations could not have imagined, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said.
	However, acknowledging that the issues that surround the Bill prompt anxiety does not mean that it is wrong. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) stressed, the measure is limited and focuses on a specific grievance. It is welcome.
	We live in a world where women can legally become pregnant from sperm delivered by an anonymous donor. It is therefore wrong not to recognise the different position that pertains when a child is born through artificial insemination with sperm from a known biological father.
	As hon. Members know, the measure arose from the difficult case of Diane Blood and her battle to conceive and register her two sons from the sperm of her late husband. No one could fail to be deeply sympathetic to her and to many others who suffer bereavement before they have the chance to start a family. Mrs. Blood now has two growing children. I am sure that all hon. Members wish the whole family a successful future. It will undoubtedly be tinged with sadness because of the circumstances that surrounded the case.
	As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) said when she spoke about her constituent, Mrs. Blood's case is not unique. Many other children and families have been affected, and the measure provides a vehicle for dealing with the injustice that they experienced. However, Mrs. Blood's case prompted us to think again about the difficult issue.
	As hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill deals with only one part of the debate: the right of babies to have their fathers' names on their birth certificates. It must be right for children to know their parents' identities, especially in an age when genetic knowledge is likely to be important and to revolutionise preventive health care and new treatments in the future. That is not the only issue, however. This is also the right thing to do.
	It must be a matter of regret that it has been left to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green to introduce the Bill. The Government have not seen fit to promote the measure themselves and it has been left to the persistent efforts of Back-Bench Members to bring it to the House. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work in putting together the Bill that is before us today. He set out his case succinctly and effectively in his speech, and he deserves to see the measure pass into law, albeit following some discussion of the detail in Committee.
	It is now nearly three years since Professor Sheila McLean published her report recommending that the names of deceased men could be placed on the birth certificates of children conceived through artificial insemination after their death. We believe that the report made sensible recommendations, and they are reflected in the Bill. As we have heard, however, the Government have not introduced legislation on the matter since that point. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) made an important contribution to the debate in introducing his private Member's Bill, which, sadly, ran out of time. I very much hope that that situation will change, this year. I hope that the Government will oil the wheels because, as we all know, private Member's Bills need a bit of a nudge along the way and a supportive eye from the Government to ensure that they become law. I hope that the Government will give the Bill that nudge.
	As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, much of the meat of the Bill is in clause 1, which sets out the different criteria that will be applied in judging whether a father's name can be used. It is particularly important that this part of the Bill should set out clear standards for the future. The complexity of the Diane Blood case resulted significantly from the fact that there was no tangible evidence that her husband had consented to the use of his sperm after his death. That was what prompted the original court battle that she went through. My first reaction on reading the Bill was that it did not provide for a case in which, for whatever reason, a man had taken a decision to store his sperm but had then, sadly, died suddenly, without having had the opportunity to make a written statement of consent.
	I have talked quite a lot to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green over the past few days about his intentions in the Bill, and he has made it clear that he believes that it should be a matter of process that the written deposition should be made at the time that the sperm is taken for storage, so the situation that I have just outlined should not arise. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have read his Bill carefully, and I am not totally convinced that that will automatically happen as a result of the measure. Working on the assumption that the Bill will proceed into Committee—as I sense from the mood of the House that it will—I believe that that is an area at which the Committee should take a careful look. It must ensure that the Bill really does make consent happen at the time that the sperm is stored, otherwise the potential for something to go wrong—as it did for Diane Blood—will certainly exist.
	The other element of clause 1 that leaves me uncomfortable is the provision that permits a father to be registered even if he is not the donor of the sperm. This is set out in proposed new subsection (5C). Again, I have talked to the hon. Gentleman about his intentions in this provision. He envisages a situation in which an unexpected death occurs while a couple are going through artificial insemination treatment using donor sperm. Under the current law, a child born in such circumstances is legally the child not of the sperm donor but of the husband of the inseminated woman, assuming that he has survived the birth of the child. I know that it is the hon. Gentleman's intention that the same situation should apply to a child born following such treatment if the husband had unexpectedly died.
	I am a little uneasy about this provision, even though I understand exactly why the hon. Gentleman has introduced it. Clearly, issues arise relating to the rights of children to know their genetic origins. Those issues might perhaps belong to a separate debate, but I would ask those who serve on the Committee to give careful consideration to the final wording of this element of the Bill to ensure that we fully understand its implications, and to decide whether this wording alone is sufficient to provide safeguards for all possible eventualities.
	I also have some reservations about the retrospective elements of the measure. I am not normally sympathetic to the concept of retrospective legislation; it is usually a bad idea and should be used only in the rarest of circumstances. This is the part of the Bill that would have dealt with a case such as Diane Blood's. Her husband died without giving written consent for the use of his sperm, and her evidence was based on reports of the verbal agreements and discussions that had taken place between them. Nobody would doubt her word on that, but the fact is that in enacting retrospective legislation we would be dealing with a much larger number of children in whose cases no written evidence exists. A number of issues arise as a result of that, particularly the circumstances in which the sperm were obtained. Again, the Committee should discuss carefully the wording of the retrospective rights provisions and ensure that the final version of the Bill is carefully structured so that those rights can be used only properly and responsibly.
	The many families who have found themselves in these most traumatic and difficult of circumstances deserve to have the issue laid to rest once and for all. We have heard talk of the 28 February court case and the ruling that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which requires respect for a person's family and private life. That has clearly made the issue all the more urgent. However, although the courts have made a ruling, the measure should be not a response to decisions taken there, but a statement by the House on what is the right thing to do. That is the way forward for it.
	I have been a Member of the House for just under two years, and in that time there have been plenty of opportunities to pass such a Bill. It is an illusion that time limits on Fridays prevent Bills from becoming law. If the Government want to make space for a Bill, they can do so. There have been plenty of half-empty evenings in the House and it would have been possible to slot in a couple of additional hours of debate. That will be no different in the coming months. There is no possible reason for the Bill not to be fully discussed, amended if and when necessary, and ultimately passed into law.
	I very much hope that, with the support of the House and of parties on both sides, including the Government, the Bill makes speedy progress in righting an injustice and sorting the issue out for all the families affected, once and for all.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to be able to say that the Government strongly support and welcome the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I congratulate him on his success in the private Members' ballot and on his clear account of the purpose and scope of his Bill. The Government believe that it presents an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of a small but growing number of children and their families.
	Members know that the Government have been keen to put children at the centre of many of their policies, which is why I am especially pleased that my hon. Friend has taken up the issue. I agree with him that the law as it stands is unfair and, in the cases with which we are concerned here, there is no doubt about who the father is. It is unfair to deny children who are growing up today a legal recognition of that fact, at least in respect of birth registration.
	The Bill would allow the father's name to be entered on the child's birth certificate when the child has been born following fertility treatment after the man's death. It attempts no more than that. There may, for example, be a case involving a couple undergoing fertility treatment and, tragically, the man dying before completion of that treatment. As the law stands, if the embryo was placed in the woman before the man's death or if the child was conceived in the normal way, his name could go on the birth certificate, but if the man died before the embryo was placed in the woman, the birth certificate must not record him as the father.
	That is unfair on the child and the bereaved family, as they have to struggle not only with coming to terms with a tragic loss, but with the distress caused by what surely must be, as several Members have said, an unintended consequence of the law as it stands. That is why it is right to change the law in this respect and why the families involved have campaigned long and hard on the issue. I pay an immense tribute to them for their tenacity and determination to see it through.
	Also, I pay tribute to all the Members who have championed the cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) has pursued the matter on a number of occasions and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), who introduced the previous Bill, almost got to the final hurdle in trying to remedy this wrong. I hope that we can make significant progress with this Bill.
	We need to be clear about the fact that the proposed changes would achieve only a symbolic recognition. The Bill would not allow the child rights of succession or inheritance, or any other legal status, primarily because doing so would make it extremely difficult to deal with the winding-up of a man's estate. Sperm, I understand, can now be stored for up to 39 years, so we can imagine the legal consequences of making such changes. Despite the Bill being only symbolic, it is very important, particularly to the families concerned, as it will be of great emotional value to the children as they grow up.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green and other hon. Members have mentioned the review by Professor Sheila McLean. That review examined the issues of storage and removal of gametes and, crucially, consent. The Bill not only implements many of her recommendations but with the retrospectivity provisions perhaps goes a little further to try to deal with the particular circumstances that families have found themselves in.
	I am grateful to the hon. Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for their support for the Bill. I understand that detailed issues will be raised around retrospectivity and perhaps consent, too. Those are important matters for the Committee to consider.
	It is unusual for the Government to support a Bill that applies retrospectively. We all adhere to the general principle of the law in that regard but in these circumstances it is absolutely right that the rights of the children are pivotal to our concern and that in future, as they grow up, they will be able to have their father's name on their birth certificate and know that they were part of loving family. That is important for them.
	I am pleased that the Bill emphasises the issue of proper consent. Again, we need to be clear about the circumstances in which consent was given and the process that is undertaken in using sperm in these circumstances. These are difficult ethical and moral issues. I know that hon. Members have a variety of views. The robustness of the process serves to reassure us all that matters will be conducted properly. The emphasis on consent is an important signal and is reinforced by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in its code of practice. The Bill reinforces the HFEA's principles about the importance of written consent.
	I am delighted and happy to welcome and support the Bill—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green could take that as a little more than a nudge. As I have said, the Government believe that it is absolutely the right thing to do. I wish it a speedy passage through the House. I hope that the House will be able this time to say that it has played a constructive role and been able to right the wrong that has existed for far too long.

Stephen McCabe: I thank all the hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I assure the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that we will seek to deal with his concerns in Committee.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that very helpful nod and for all her encouragement and support. I thank also all the people who have helped and advised me in the preparation of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

High Hedges (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Stephen Pound: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	It was said earlier today that we were having the second reading of a Second Reading. Many right hon. and hon. Members will feel that they have been around this course a few times before: it is something like the fifth Second Reading of the Bill. I make no apologies for the fact that we have returned to the issue, hopefully for the last time.
	Hon. Members will be aware that Baroness Gardner of Parkes has completed all stages in the House of Lords of the High Hedges (No. 1) Bill. I humbly bring before the House the parallel High Hedges (No. 2) Bill, which differs in no way from her Bill. I pay full and sincere tribute to her and her able colleague and cohort Lord Graham of Edmonton, who did an excellent job in the other place and during the Committee stage. I also pay tribute to Baroness Hamwee and Baroness Hanham, who made a number of extremely pertinent comments both on the Floor of the other place and in Committee. I thank Lord Walker of Doncaster, who speaks with the gravitas of someone who is the chairman of the all-party group on gardening and horticulture and who made a number of points of considerable significance. Obviously it would be remiss of me not to mention Lord Bassam and Lord Evans, who spoke for the Government in Committee.
	I mentioned that we have been here before. If cypress leylandii sprout at an alarming rate, it seems that Bills to control them have a similar propensity. We have had Bills from a former hon. Member for Mid-Kent and one recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham). Most recently and most memorably, we had a Bill from the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who presented it with the graceful, gentle and generous style typical of the man. I was delighted and honoured to be able to support him on that day.

John Taylor: rose—

Stephen Pound: I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman before I embarrass him even more.

John Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman first, for giving way, and secondly, for his extremely kind words. It is my intention wholeheartedly to support him in his efforts. Does he agree that the great virtue of his Bill is that it gets away from the quagmire that is the English law of nuisance and away from the law courts into the objective tests of height and light—things that can be measured—using the local authority as the ultimate arbiter? Does he agree that, among the many virtues of his Bill, those points are central?

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman, as in so many things, is absolutely right. There is a certain congruence between two tonsorially challenged suburban Members of Parliament, slightly to the right of their parties, but I am honoured to associate myself with his comments. If we can drag ourselves from this quagmire into the free and open spaces of uncluttered light, so much the better.
	I must pay tribute also to a distinguished jurist, known to many Members of the House, Charles Mynors, the author of a must-read volume, "The Law of Trees, Forests and Hedgerows"; a book which, on first reading, might appear to be a tad dry, but which combines wit and erudition in a style normally associated with the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) and for Solihull.
	I also thank the officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who have worked intensely to reign in some of my more outré suggestions regarding paramilitary groups wielding chainsaws. They endured a series of meetings in my office, a pit of such filth and depravity that I felt ashamed to ask them in. Yet they survived; they emerged—coughing it has to be said—but I was enlightened.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that those last remarks will have been heard by the Serjeant at Arms.

Stephen Pound: National no-smoking day is barely 11½ months away and I shall bear those comments very much in mind.
	I should like to thank Hedgeline for its sterling work in propagating and promulgating the extent of the problem and the possible solutions. Most of all I want to thank Mrs. Georgina Paul, of Hicks avenue, Greenford. Mrs. Paul and her husband are constituents of mine, and they are ordinary decent suburban people trying to get on with their lives. Mr. Paul is a former paratrooper and they live in a typical home in a typical street in a typical suburb.
	I congratulate them because they have faith in our parliamentary system to right wrongs. They believe that what we do here is not some abstract art but an act of change and betterment. They believe that we in this place can help those who have no other recourse and they believe that we can do good here. They believe that we are sent here to do good and that we have the power to do it. Many people are cynical about the value of politics in the 21st century—dare I say it, some hon. Members may flirt with cynicism.
	Mr. and Mrs. Paul have a problem. It is not of their making and, oddly enough, it is not a problem of malice. It is not a problem of an evil neighbour shrouding their garden in perpetual darkness by maliciously and malevolently planting these loathsome hybrid trees that first saw the light of day in Wales in 1888 and have denied the light of day to many people ever since. It is more a problem of ignorance on the part of their neighbours. However, Mr. and Mrs. Paul have no recourse at the moment except to the most expensive series of civil actions. That cannot be right. I look to the House today, as Mr. and Mrs. Paul look to me, to make something better—a modest but, I would suggest, one of the finest callings that any of us could aspire to in this House.

George Osborne: It is not only the constituents of the hon. Gentleman who look to the House today. I, like many hon. Members, have received numerous letters from constituents who look to the House of Commons to sort out this issue once and for all. I wish the hon. Gentleman well with his Bill.

Stephen Pound: I have been pleased to be in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman. At the last count, 203 Members of Parliament had written to me and to my hon. Friend the Minister to raise their concerns on this issue. Every single one of them swore on a stack of Bibles that they would be here today. I have no doubt that they are about the building somewhere.
	During the discussions on the two Bills that have been covered already this morning, the question was fairly asked why those Bills had not been introduced by the Government. Criticism of the Government is normally the province of people on the Labour Benches, but I am prepared to listen to that question from other Benches. It is entirely valid. However, because of the preponderance of private Members' Bills on this particular subject, it would be superfluous for the Government to act. What the Government can do, and have done, is to give a fair following wind and to support us. The Government can also acknowledge the importance and significance of the private Member's Bill process. Must everything go through the monolithic full parliamentary process? Is there no room for these small private Members' Bills that mean so much to our constituents and so much to so many of us? Is it not right that a thousand flowers should bloom even if a thousand hedges should be trimmed? I would have no problem with that.
	I have an hon. Friend whom I used to know as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). I now have to refer to him as the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; and as the First Secretary of State for Housing, Planning and Regeneration; and as the Minister for London; and as the Minister for high hedges. He has been remarkably, fulsomely and exhaustively helpful throughout this process.

John Taylor: Given that the Minister has all that sonorous authority, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as private Members' Bills are a rather fragile and vulnerable way of legislating, it would not have been better if the Government had taken over this measure and dealt with it in Government time, on a Whip, and possibly—as seems to be conventional these days—on a timetable as well?

Stephen Pound: Sadly, whipping is not quite as strong as it once was. However, I would suggest that the Government are, in fact, showing confidence in the strength and ability of even such lowly hon. Members as me. The Government are happy to allow us to bring these matters forward. I think that that shows confidence, and I am proud to disappoint—I mean, to reciprocate.
	I do not wish to canter across the broad meadow of the reasons why we are introducing this legislation. I cannot believe that any hon. Member, or anyone in the country, does not acknowledge the need to pay some urgent attention to a problem that affects, at the last count in 1999, some 17,000 people—people who are the victims, unwittingly or maliciously, of actions by their neighbours. We have an opportunity to address that problem. I do not want to go through an enormous list of explanations for why we need this Bill. However, I would like to say where we are at the moment. I referred earlier to the Bill of Baroness Gardner of Parkes, which has now completed its Committee stage in the House of Lords. Those who have read the reports of that Committee stage will have seen that the amendments offered were very subtle and to the point, and were either withdrawn by leave or accepted by the Government. We are therefore in the wonderful, fortuitous position of having a Bill—the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) referred to pruning and predation in Committee, but we have seen fertilisation and trimming in Committee—that is now in a far better shape, for which we should be grateful.

Bob Spink: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's characteristically charming and eloquent rendition, and I congratulate him on his Bill, which I will support. As well as recognising that we all have Mr. and Mrs Pauls in our constituencies—we all know the damage that tree roots cause to property and the problem that they cause for insurance companies—does he recognise the hope that all the excellent and hard-working local councillors, who must also deal with the matter but have no tools with which to deal with it, are placing in him, and in our supporting him, to find a solution through his Bill?

Stephen Pound: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and I am well aware of his knowledge of the matter and of his activity with his local council. I shall refer later to the National Association of Tree Officers and to the arboricultural officers, although none is as appropriately named as the occupant of the post in the London borough of Harrow—Mr. Bush.
	I was referring to the way in which the Bill has been shaped in Committee in the House of Lords, and we are extremely fortunate that it has come to us in this way. Some people have some objections to this Bill. I would like to give the impression— and attempt to the fool the House, although I would almost certainly fail—that everyone supports the Bill. The majority of people support it—there is no question about that—and it is supported by the three Front Benches. Some people, however, have objections. There are objections on pure libertarian grounds. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who sits with his canines glittering in the shadow of the Opposition Back Benches, has a perfectly legitimate case to make on pure libertarian grounds. I hope, too, that I have my case to make, and that my case will resonate more widely and deeply throughout the country. People deserve the right of protection even if we accept that there is a libertarian argument.

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago, as if to imply that it was almost a clinching argument, that the Bill had the support of all the Front Benches. Does he concede that some of the worst Bills in history have had the support of all the Front Benches? It is one of the great dangers of this place that, if we rush to legislation based on the volume of the postbag or the consensus of the Front Benches, we may legislative very badly.

Stephen Pound: I would never be so presumptuous as to criticise or comment on the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman, mostly because I would be too terrified to do so. This is no rush to legislation, however; it has been creeping and growing slowly through the sclerotic veins of Parliament for more years than I have been a Member. It is not a cupressus leylandii, sprouting skywards by the minute. It is a far slower-growing vine that needs to come to fruition so that we can all cherish the vintage that it produces.

Debra Shipley: I hesitate to intervene because, as ever, my hon. Friend is making a magnificent speech. Does he agree, however, that the lives of my constituents and many others are blighted by these trees, and their hopes are raised time and again when they think that there will be legislation to do something about it, and dashed when it does not happen? Will he assure me that he will do everything that he can, with his wonderful oratory and other skills, to get the Bill through?

Stephen Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Were the success of the Bill to depend on my oratorical skills, I would not wish to put money on it. I am well aware, however, from the correspondence that I have shared with her, how desperately important this subject is. I can only hope, despite the fact that the majority of people are in favour of the Bill, that the House will support it.

Andrew Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Pound: I was going to refer to other objections to the Bill, but I will certainly give way to one of its sponsors.

Andrew Dismore: May I associate myself with my hon. Friend's Bill? Having sat through many hours of parliamentary debate on previous occasions, he will be pleased that I shall not make a speech today because we have little time. I reassure him that many of my constituents have written to me in support of the Bill. Only one person wrote in opposition, but they did not understand the Bill and their position has changed since I explained it.

Stephen Pound: That was, by many hours, the shortest contribution that I have heard from my hon. Friend, and it benefited somewhat from its brevity. I appreciate that it is parliamentary convention to stand up and go through a Bill clause by clause, but we have done that four or five times in this House. The other place has had Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading. Time is of the essence today, which is why I am trying to limit my speech.
	Some people have objected that the Bill would lay an unfeasible burden on hard-pressed local authorities. Many local authority arboricultural, tree, planning and enforcement officers are already contacted by council tax payers about the subject. They are unable to do anything about the problem and must spend an enormous amount of time telling people that. I hope that clause 21, which sets out the financial provisions, addresses people's worries that we would lay too large a financial burden on local authorities.

Patsy Calton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and must tell him that my asthma is much improved since I moved from an office next door to his. May I draw attention to the terminology used in the Bill? The hon. Gentleman has mentioned leylandii three times and the Bill refers to evergreens. Will he clarify, for my constituents and others, that "evergreens" do not include only leylandii or conifers?

Stephen Pound: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and demonstrates another reason why I miss her so much as a neighbour. I can only apologise for the noxious substances that drifted under her door. She is right that the Bill is not about cypress leylandii because that is only one of the most objectionable aspects of the problem caused by high hedges, however they are constituted. At this moment, a mad scientist—

Paul Beresford: rose—

Stephen Pound: I shall give way to the distinguished scientist in a moment.
	At this moment, a scientist might be producing a genetically modified sunflower that could create problems in a few weeks or years. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) made an excellent point because the Bill would specifically cover two or more trees, bushes or shrubs with a height of more than 2 m that cause a loss of light, amenity and outlook. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will be delighted to hear, the Bill is not "Son of Dangerous Dogs 2".

Paul Beresford: I am relieved that the hon. Gentleman is not picking on that specific plant. I am not a horticulturalist and I had not encountered the leylandii until I came to this country. I talked to a horticulturalist who is a leylandii specialist and has a 35-year-old beautiful golden leylandii hedge that has been 6 ft for 33 years. The problem lies not with the plant, but its owner.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I hope that the Bill addresses that issue specifically. It would not stop people growing anything of any height anywhere provided that it does not cause a problem, annoyance or nuisance to neighbours. The key point is that the Bill does not prohibit the growth of 6½ ft leylandii or anything else; it simply provides legal redress in cases where there is a problem.
	The third category of complainants is slightly esoteric.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Pound: I am just coming on to the question of naturists and holly bush hedges, but I will give way.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman referred to local authority officers who are unable to deal with tall hedges. That takes me back to the libertarian point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). If the hedge were built of brick, the planning authority could do something about it. People do not have an absolute right to do as they wish in their own gardens; for example, they cannot build high walls. Why should they be able to build a high wall in green?
	Will the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) give me an assurance? In Oxfordshire or Northamptonshire there is a village called Hinton-in-the-Hedges. [Interruption.] It is in Northamptonshire. Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that the village is not renamed Hinton-without-the-Hedges when the Bill becomes law?

Stephen Pound: I am responsible for many things in life, but the nomenclature of hamlets in Northamptonshire is not, and please God never will be, one of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) speaks for the villages of Northamptonshire, and I am sure that he has heard the hon. Gentleman's point.
	Returning to holly bush hedges and naturists—[Laughter.] This is a serious point. Some people have raised the objection that certain groups of naturists rely on high hedges to provide screening. May I tell naturists that nothing in the Bill should be seen as a threat to their way of life? Their bushes are safe. They have nothing to fear except, obviously, stinging nettles.
	It is important to stress that the Bill is not intended to prevent people from making good, sensible and adult use of any form of high hedge. In its place, a high hedge is not a problem, but in the wrong place it is a problem for neighbours, and that is the issue that we have to address. I am tempted to bore the House into tedium and, hopefully, submission, but I will resist doing so.

Paul Beresford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Pound: No, I will not take another intervention because I know that others wish to speak.
	In the great scale of things, and particularly in these times, this may seem a minor matter. I cannot stress too strongly how much of a misery some decent people's lives are being made by the inability of local and central Government to respond to their legitimate concerns and frustrations. We have here the fourth or fifth opportunity to do something about that. Let us seize that opportunity and support the Bill, which has, I hope, the support of the majority, if not all, of the House. Returning to Mr. and Mrs. Paul in Hicks avenue, Greenford, I say to them, "You had faith in your Parliament. We have repaid that faith."

Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on introducing the Bill. We all thoroughly enjoyed his speech, probably as much as he enjoyed delivering it. We noted with interest that he bordered on subjects such as the Sexual Offences Bill, but we were delighted with the way in which he demonstrated his enthusiasm for cutting things down—by cutting down the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North in particular on paying tribute not only to many organisations, including Hedgeline, but to many right hon. and hon. Members in the House and the other place for the work that they have done on this issue. I also join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) for the work that he did less than two years ago. The hon. Member for Ealing, North is right to say that the Bill—having been fertilised, as he put it, in another place—comes back to us in a modified and improved form. I congratulate him on introducing it.
	The hon. Gentleman described the Deputy Prime Minister's support as remarkable, fulsome and helpful. The hon. Gentleman should be a little wary of saying such things, because I am sure that he will be well aware that on 10 August 2000, the Deputy Prime Minister's then Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, issued a press release, which said:
	"We recognise that over-grown garden hedges have caused distress to thousands of people and we take these problems very seriously. Our consultation has confirmed the overwhelming support for tougher controls. And that is why we will work up new laws to give local authorities in England powers to intervene in neighbourhood hedge disputes. Legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time can be found."
	Government parliamentary time was not found.
	The hon. Member for Solihull introduced his Bill, and he was delighted. On its Second Reading on 9 March 2001, he said how grateful he was that the Government had prepared the explanatory notes to go with his Bill and were indicating their support for it. Sadly, that Bill failed at the last minute owing to lack of time caused by the calling of the general election. Given that we again have the Deputy Prime Minister's support, I very much hope that this Bill will be more successful than previous ones have been. This is a vitally important issue that desperately needs to be addressed.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, North did not refer to the fact that, if the Bill is not successful, the only remedy for people suffering from the problems created by high hedges that he eloquently outlined is to take civil legal action. All the evidence shows that the cost of such civil action can be somewhere in the region of £25,000 to £40,000 for each case. Anything that we can do to remove such costs from what is the only remedy for people suffering from the problems caused by high hedges is clearly to be welcomed.
	Like all hon. Members with similar experiences in their constituencies, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the problem is not just the legal costs that might have to be incurred. People face a range of other problems and they have been known to lead to serious illness—and, indeed, in the worst disputes, to violent assault. It is important that we provide a quick, simple and cheap remedy to resolving such problems.
	I presume that the hon. Gentleman has agreed to the explanatory notes even though they were prepared by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The costing figures in the notes suggest that 10,000 cases in the United Kingdom are outstanding and waiting to be resolved. I suggest that we could at least double that figure, because very many people will simply not have reported their concerns. They know that the only resolution is through an expensive civil action. I suspect that many more people than the 10,000 will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman's Bill is successful, as I hope it will be.
	I could provide many examples, and I am sure that other hon. Members will refer to cases in their constituencies. I have been looking back at the speech that I gave on this subject in 2001, in which I referred to a letter from a constituent. Its contents bear repeating because it sums up the totality of the wide range of problems that can be created. My constituent wrote:
	"The trees are now approximately 40 feet high. They overhang the garage roof and garden by about 8 feet. They have drawn moisture from the ground beneath the garage and have caused its wall to subside close to the boundary. They are constantly dropping dead material which clogs the garage gutter, blows around the paths close to the house back door, clogs drains. Much of the back garden which once formed a useful vegetable plot and also gave innocent pleasure is now shaded and cannot be used for growing. The tree closest to the house and kitchen window has grown to about 15 feet. It is taking light from the kitchen and my mother has to arrange for it to be clipped back from her path (obviously, she cannot do this herself)."
	This woman is aged 81. And so it goes it on. Many of us in the House have had to deal with similar problems, and our constituents are grateful for the Bill.
	I am delighted that there is a provision in the Bill allowing it to be changed if related problems arise. I, for one, am disappointed that it does not cover difficulties caused by the roots of high hedges, which can cause significant problems for neighbours. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has raised the interesting question of whether the 2 m height limit is always appropriate, as even a 2 m high hedge could cause a considerable light problem if it were close to a neighbour's window. We may need to address that in Committee.

Richard Younger-Ross: On the problem of root damage, does my hon. Friend agree that occasionally cutting a high hedge down in clay soil may lead to clay heave? In Committee, we will have to address what happens if a hedge is removed and there is subsequent damage to a property or a retaining wall.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend is right—there are problems that need to be considered in detail. He will be aware that none of the remedies in the Bill necessarily require the removal of the hedge. Indeed, that is specifically excluded as an action that could be required by the local authority of an owner.

Paul Beresford: I repeat that I am no expert on leylandii, but I understand that if a fairly tall leylandii is cut down to 2 m, the hedge is effectively killed—not removing it, but doing the next best thing.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is one reason why I referred to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. The Bill has a number of details and implications that it would be right and sensible to address in Committee. Today, however, we are ensuring that the Bill goes into Committee so that such issues can be discussed. I hope that in Committee we will have additional research to help us with some of the issues raised by the Bill. Emerging research, for example, demonstrates that because high hedges reduce light, they can have an impact on the passive solar heating of buildings, requiring some people to leave their heating on longer. Some estimates suggest that that costs the nation about £1 million, and perhaps more. Such a saving could go towards meeting the proposed cost of implementing the Bill.
	Many hon. Members wish to speak in our debate, so I shall conclude. The Bill is important—I have said the same of similar Bills that have come before the House. The Bill is a new, improved version of an earlier Bill, and Liberal Democrats wish it Godspeed.

Ben Chapman: I shall be brief. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on introducing this important Bill in the House. It may be seen by some as slight and perhaps flippant, but it is far from it. It is not just, as has been said, Mr. and Mrs. Paul or, I suspect, the 203 Members of Parliament who have corresponded with my hon. Friend who have an interest in this matter. It affects many constituencies and many people across the country—it certainly affects my constituency. I am still dealing with correspondence going back to my arrival in the House at the end of the 1992 Parliament. The issue is very serious indeed, and is not, as has been said, just about cupressus leylandii, although that is the principal villain of the piece, growing 4 ft a year to a height of 100 ft. All high hedges are a problem. Not only do they cause bitter, long-running disputes between neighbours, damaging people's health and happiness, but they damage people's enjoyment of their gardens—one of the principal pleasures of our lives in the United Kingdom. A high hedge damages a garden by taking water, which is needed by other plants, away from the soil. It kills off other plants, damages the quality of the soil and forms an overarching mass that cuts out the light inside houses as well as in gardens. It is a serious problem and takes a great deal of pleasure out of people's everyday existence.
	A high hedge can reduce house prices for people who are entirely innocent. The roots of the hedge get under other people's properties and gardens and can damage them. Building societies, which have experience of the problem, make it difficult to get a mortgage on a house alongside a high hedge. When selling a house, people have to state in the seller's declaration whether they have had a dispute with a neighbour. Such disputes merit a mention, because they are often long running and bitter. If a dispute is mentioned on the seller's declaration form, as often as not the sale will not go through, or the price of the property will be reduced. The poor soul who owns the house has no influence on that.
	Laws limiting height and position apply to garden fences and walls, but not to hedges. There are laws bearing on all such structures, and hedges and trees are the only exceptions. We need to address that. Useful though it is, the guidance that has so far been provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, "Over the Garden Hedge", has not to my knowledge led to the resolution of any particular dispute. The disputes that were going on when I entered Parliament are by and large still going on.
	It is important that we do not just provide tea and sympathy. We must provide a legislative framework—a procedure that must be cheap to administer and easy to enter into, without the costs and difficulties involved in civil action. It is important that we have an appropriate mechanism for mediation before action becomes necessary, hopefully bringing about an amicable resolution of the dispute. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North on an extremely important Bill, which has my support, and I hope the support of the whole House.

Paul Beresford: With no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am rather disappointed that your colleague Sir Michael Lord is not in the Chair. In his previous guise, he was an expert on this matter and could straighten out any horticultural mistakes made by hon. Members in their speeches.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on introducing his Bill. It is an important Bill, and I was pleased when it was announced. Half a dozen or so people have written to me or telephoned to tell me about their problems in relation to high hedges—not all of them leylandii; in some cases, we are talking about yew and other types of plant. Almost all the disputes are genuine and cause deep concern. I have one resident in Dorking who lives in an area that is rather like a canyon, because there are leylandii on both sides. The owners on either side will not do anything about it, and it is a pernicious and unpleasant problem.
	Hedges and drains are the biggest problems in a rural and semi-rural area, and the disputes can be enormous. In most of them we have managed to negotiate a resolution by getting neighbours to talk to each other. I pay great credit to Surrey Mediation, which has done extremely well. I have grim memories of doing such work myself—having got the neighbours standing 200 yd apart at their front entrance or to one side of it, I walked up and down the road between them until I finally got agreement, making notes and getting both parties to sign them before we got something done. It worked. Why they had not done it themselves, I do not know.
	I was delighted at the prospect of the Bill. I even got a copy of it, but I put it on my desk and did not read it. Then a gentleman came to one of my regular surgeries and his name rang a bell—an alarm bell. He came in to talk about hedges. I was vaguely prepared because he had hinted that his problem concerned leylandii hedges and I was aware that they could pose a problem. I mentioned the 6 ft-high one, and that I had seen another that was between 17 ft and 18 ft tall and 6 ft wide, well away from everybody, and the neighbours on all sides thought that it was fantastic and the owner of the hedge trimmed it once or twice a year and kept it well within control. There was no difficulty and that is what one would expect from any sensible, reasonable citizen, even in a fairly rural area.
	I then had that gentleman in; or he came in to have me, so to speak. He wandered around the mulberry bush and finally came to the Bill, and he produced a photograph taken from his property, down his back yard, of a hedge about 20 ft long and 10 ft high—it was a broad property—on both sides and at the back, bordering on his three neighbours, and two beautiful trees. He had raised the issue with the local authority and the tree man who will be looking after hedges if the Bill is enacted went to see him, and he too thought that the trees were beautiful so he listed them, which I thought was right. I pointed out to the gentleman that there was no indication of shade, to which he said that he must have taken the photograph at the wrong time of day. I asked him if he was enjoying this and he said, "Oh yes, I am enjoying this, and when the Bill goes through I am going to have all my neighbours." The penny suddenly dropped.
	The full regulatory impact assessment states that the objective is
	"To make hedge disputes a thing of the past by creating a mechanism that allows an impartial third party (local authorities), as a last resort, to determine these complaints."
	That is a lovely aspiration but—

Stephen Pound: There is a specific recognition in the Bill that the local authority has the power to strike out frivolous and vexatious complaints. Secondly, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the definition of a hedge, which is not one or two trees, but a continuous wall of evergreen deciduous growth, be it what it may. So the hon. Gentleman's constituent may be frustrated in his endeavours to annoy his neighbours.

Paul Beresford: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I think he was referring to evergreen, not deciduous, growth, and I shall come to that.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Paul Beresford: The point is that the gentleman recognised that the trees would stay, but he was going for the little bit of hedge, and if he had a little success there, I have no doubt that he would go to his neighbours on the other side. To illustrate the situation, one of the gentleman's neighbours is a lovely man who has made a lot of money and lives in a delightful house and each year he puts up Christmas lights. They do not particularly appeal to me, but the local people like them. They go past and smile, blink and wink, and the plastic Father Christmas is quite a stunning sight. But this year, they were not there, so I inquired why, and he said that his neighbour, the man who had come to my surgery, had complained, and that he spends his life complaining.
	I sent the Bill to my two local authorities, Guildford and Mole Valley, and they passed it to the office that would be dealing with the matter, if and when it became law. They said that before they had looked at the Bill they were very much in favour of it but that, having looked at it they were desperately concerned because they feared being involved in the resulting ongoing disputes; that if there was a dispute they would be the jam in the sandwich. The officer would go down with his measuring tape and measure both sides and talk to both neighbours. Both neighbours would plead their cause, one to leave the hedge alone and the other to cut it down, then the matter would go to a committee and there would be lobbying on both sides. The committee may ask for more negotiations, and it is nice to see provision for that in the Bill, so there would be more negotiations and more threats, and some of those, if not most of them would come back to the committee and there would be more lobbying. The Liberal councillors on one side of the hedge will support its being cut down and those on the other side will support its being left alone, and then in committee they will abstain.
	At the end of the day, however, the committee will decide. Knowing some people in my constituency who have encountered the problem, I think it likely that there will be an appeal. Often, in respect of the people whom I am trying to help, the existence of the hedge is the symptom of a neighbour dispute—in other words, it represents the fact that one neighbour is being vindictive to without reason. The position can then be turned the other way around and the neighbour without the hedge will triumph. The argument will then continue.
	One of the reasons why I would have been intrigued if Sir Michael had been in the Chair—I mean no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that he is an expert on the matter and I happen to know personally that he dealt with such a problem in his previous professional life and was very successful. A lady who does not live in my constituency was being vindictively picked on by a very unpleasant neighbour. He had allowed his leylandii—I think that they were leylandii, but they could have been macrocarpa—to grow to 30 ft or 40 ft in height. By various means, the court decided—it did not do so at great expense—that they should come down. The last I heard is that the gentleman is now planting two rows of trees. The trees are separate, but they overlap, so that, when you stand well back, they appear to be a hedge, but when you come close, it is clear that there are two rows of trees. I understand that he is considering planting a copse if the Bill is enacted.
	The argument will continue. The local authority will see that there are two separate rows of trees, which do not constitute a hedge, but the phrasing of the legislation might make it possible to get around that. However, if the gentleman turns the area into a copse, the argument will continue. Of course, that problem clearly does not apply in an urban area.
	When the committee makes a decision—I should like a few answers about this—the matter will go to appeal, which will take six months, in addition to the initial one or two months. After those six months, an inspector will come and look at the site. The local authority will pay for that. Knowing what most of these people are like, I think that there will usually be an appeal. The matter will then go back to committee. Of course, the legislation allows the council to change its mind. On most occasions, it is a good idea that it should be able to change its mind, but what bothers me is that that will entail an awful lot of to-ing and fro-ing, although there might be some justice at the end.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for correcting me in my confusion between deciduous and evergreen trees.
	Objectivity is a key component of the Bill, which is written specifically to ensure that a series of objective criteria can be used as a template involving the Building Research Establishment and various other groups. The sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman describes of malice in Mole Valley could apply equally to any aspect of the built environment, such as conservatories or anything else. I respectfully suggest, however, that that is not a reason for doing away with planning law. I hope that he will come to see that the objective criteria in the Bill will address precisely the issues that he is raising.

Paul Beresford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I hope that he is right. However, I am trying to put down some markers which I hope we can think about in Committee.
	The rural situation is completely different. The officer at Guildford council who will be responsible for these matters expressed deep concern. She pointed out that, outside the suburban area of Guildford—and in much of my constituency—a hedge has to be 4 m or more high to be tall. A 2 m hedge is a bit of shrubbery at the end of the garden, so a 2 m provision is absolutely unreasonable. I hope that the Bill will allow local authorities to consider specific circumstances and recognise that while 2 m might be an appropriate measurement in dealing with the Deputy Prime Minister's hedges in Hull, it might not be appropriate in the surrounds and rural areas of Guildford and Mole Valley, as well as in some other areas.
	I cautiously support the Bill and hope against hope that the problem can be resolved, the measure will grant flexibility and the promised money is distributed a little more fairly than under the current system. The hon. Member for Ealing, North knows about the current position because he has a constituency in the south and has watched money flow from it into the urban areas of the north, although I am sure that his council kept the council tax below that of Liverpool, Manchester and Hull.
	We must acknowledge that passing the Bill in its current form will create as many problems, disputes and difficulties for local authorities as exist already without local authority involvement. Many officers and members of local authorities who believe that the Bill is a good measure that will work should read it carefully and think ahead. If they are in rural constituencies or those where the density of properties is low, they will suffer enormous, expensive disputes between the same neighbours and probably many more. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North has any doubts about that, I am more than happy to refer the gentleman who visited me in my surgery to him. The hon. Gentleman declines; that is probably appropriate.

Chris Grayling: I shall speak briefly. I declare an interest because I have recently spent a not inconsiderable sum on removing many leylandii, which I inherited from the previous owner, from my garden. I shall plant a few replacements, which I have every intention of keeping to the same height as the adjoining beech hedge. However, I recognise their rapid growth and spread.
	The Bill is a sad reflection of people's inability in modern society to reach a settlement that works for both sets of neighbours. It is a great shame that so many people allow the hedges to grow without considering the impact on those whose homes adjoin theirs. Like other hon. Members, many constituents have visited or written to me to express their great anxiety about the impact of adjoining hedges. I hope that the House will play a role in finding a mechanism for resolving the problem.
	I commend the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on promoting the Bill. If it is properly tackled in Committee and subsequently enacted, it could make a great difference to my constituents and all those around the country who have suffered from loss of light and the impact of high hedges.
	I want to draw attention to three points that could be considered in Committee. First, the Committee should understand and discuss the implications of local authorities' resolution of a high hedges problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made the valid point that it is not possible to cut down leylandii that are 30 or 40 ft to 6 ft. The result will be a row of stumps. The measure will therefore mean the removal of barriers between houses. That could generate disputes about what will replace the barrier and who pays for it. The Committee should give some thought to the disputes that could ensue from the removal of a hedge.
	Secondly, I know from my experience that cutting down and replacing leylandii can be expensive. There is a danger that a local authority decision about a substantial hedge that has grown over several years could mean significant cost to a homeowner. The Committee might like to consider that because in some cases, the party who is required to take down the hedge will be a pensioner and may not be able to afford the cost. The Committee should at least consider how local authorities should handle such cases so as to ensure that a solution can be found.
	My final point relates to height. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley that the selection of a height of 2 m is not necessarily going to be appropriate to every environment. For example, the old, historic yew hedges around the country might be 9 or 10 ft tall, but they are entirely appropriate to their environment. I, too, would like to see some discretion given to local authorities to modify the height that they use as a benchmark in relation to this measure, depending on the particular circumstances of the neighbourhood that they cover.
	I hope that those three points can be taken into Committee and given some consideration. I commend the hon. Gentleman for the Bill. It deserves the support of the House, and I hope that, when it emerges in its final form, some of its rough edges will have been ironed out so that it really can work and make a difference to the people who need it.

Annette Brooke: I would like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I have recently become his neighbour, so far as offices are concerned. Like everyone else here, I have received an enormous number of letters on this issue. I would like to place on record that hedges are a very important part of our urban and suburban landscape, but—and it is a big "but"—the downside is that they can create absolute misery for neighbours if they are unsuitable for a particular location, or if they are not properly maintained. A conflict occurs if what is seen as reasonable from one side of the hedge is seen as extremely unreasonable from the other. It really depends which side of the hedge you are on.
	I was first alerted to such problems as a councillor following up a resident's complaint. I visited a large house that had been converted into flats. An elderly couple lived on the ground floor, with their main living room windows very close to a side boundary. Neither of the elderly people was in good health, and they rarely went outside. They looked out on to a high, dense hedge and were so deprived of daylight that they required electric light all day long. That was not very sustainable, and it obviously had a severe impact on the quality of the remaining years of their lives. A fence over 2 m high in exactly the same position would have required planning permission. It might have received it, but the fact is that the permission would have been required. We have to take this on board, because we are not necessarily precluding hedges over 2 m here, although some hon. Members seem to be implying that we are. It is absolutely logical that, if a fence requires planning permission, there should at least be an opportunity for an objection to be lodged against a hedge in a similar position.
	As a former chairman of planners, I recall dealing with many planning applications, and I found that there was often no agreement between the planning officers and the objectors as to what constituted loss of light. I imagine that there will not always be agreement between planning officers and complainants about high hedges as to whether reasonable enjoyment of property is being adversely affected. The final outcomes will not, therefore, meet everyone's aspirations, but at least there will be a framework in place on which judgments can be based, and there will be the clear potential for action to be taken in many cases. So, the outcomes might not be perfect, but we shall be improving the quality of life for a lot of people.
	The guidance that we have already, and a polite approach—which is always possible—clearly do not solve all the problems. I would like to quote from a letter from one of my constituents:
	"Our own experience is that a polite, reasonable and conciliatory approach over a long time to an individual has been a waste of time. The person has no concern in the slightest about the misery she has caused us by planting a fast growing conifer hedge outside the back windows of our house. Thus, the hedge completely obscures our access to natural light in that part of our home."
	We have also heard today about the difficulty of maintaining someone else's hedge, and about people risking injury through no fault of their own by climbing up to do so. Others might have problems selling houses or with losing views, which, again, is distressing for those who have lived in a house for a long time.
	The worst problem in my constituency involves a private school with a high hedge that grows rapidly. The owners contend that it protects neighbours' property from balls and other intrusions from the school, but the reality is that at least six people have an unhappy life due to the intrusion of the trees on their gardens.
	I welcome the fact that local authorities would be able to reject a complaint if they felt that insufficient effort had been made to resolve the matter amicably, or indeed if the complaint was frivolous or vexatious. That should open the way to mediation, and it is good to have that in the first place. However, I have concerns that hedges might be out of control due to inability to cope with maintenance, perhaps due to age. Although I want local authorities to handle such cases firmly, sensitivity must obviously be shown.
	Due to my council background and as my constituency covers a council area in the south, I am exceedingly concerned about the pressure on local authority resources—it would be necessary to give local authorities more money than they got in from the fees.

Paul Beresford: I note the hon. Lady's thoughtful point about the fact that some people are unable to maintain their hedges because of their age or financial position. What would happen if the local authority decided that the hedge should come down to 2 m, but the finances of the lady or old gentleman who owned it would not stretch to taking it down to that level and maintaining it? Who would pay and what would be the arrangements?

Annette Brooke: My reason for alluding to such cases is that those matters must be discussed in Committee. That is the right place to consider such detailed concerns.
	To return to my point on local authority resources, funding the appeal process would be expensive and there would be a lot of appeals until the backlog of cases had been dealt with, so I urge the Minister to consider the matter. The Bill is about quality of life. One neighbour's perfectly reasonable desire for privacy may result in misery for occupants of adjoining properties, so we need a mediation process backed by statute to resolve such conflicts.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow my Dorset neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), although I am disappointed that she did not pick up on the regulatory impact assessment, which answers the question of who will pay. The answer is that the local authorities will pay.

Eric Forth: And the taxpayer.

Christopher Chope: And the taxpayer will pay. The regulatory impact assessment says that it would be possible for local authorities to raise some revenue from imposing charges for access to the regulatory regime and that the rest of the money would be distributed through the revenue support grant system if there was a shortfall. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole knows, that would not be much use in Dorset, because our local authorities are on the floor, and the people likewise.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: In a moment. If the Government say that they would add money to the revenue support grant, that does not mean any real additional money due to the impact of the floors and ceilings regime that they have introduced. East Dorset district council, part of whose area is in my constituency, does not receive any revenue support grant, so if the Government say that the burden of the measure would be met by money distributed from the centre through that grant, they are doing nothing at all to help my hard-pressed council tax payers and constituents. I shall now give way to the hon. Lady, if she wants to get in.

Annette Brooke: No thanks.

Christopher Chope: Okay. I am sorry that I have embarrassed the hon. Lady about that.

Paul Beresford: To follow up my hon. Friend's point, we are dealing not with structures that are built, but with plants that grow. The Bill's promoter explained that with the dramatic example of his favourite plant, the leylandii. The payment problem would be annual, if not twice-yearly, if a hedge had to be kept in shape and trimmed.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right.
	I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) because although he was tremendously charming—he could have charmed the birds from the trees or from the leylandii—he was a little flippant. These are serious issues and if the Bill is brought forward in the form it is in at the moment many of our constituents will have much cause for complaint.
	It is not just me expressing concerns about the Bill. A letter to me from a constituent states:
	"Ref: Conifers and tall hedges.
	When a tall hedge has been established for many years is it threatened with a serious reduction in size just because a neighbour doesn't like it, even if it has been at that height before the present neighbour moved in?
	What happens if the hedge borders several properties and not everyone wants the hedge cut down?
	Is this legislation to apply to hedges that are not right on the boundary line?
	If a new dwelling is built next to a hedge can the new occupants insist on the hedge being cut down?
	These are just a few of the questions that this proposal raises.
	Many people feel that their gardens are under threat with the look and privacy of their gardens being subjected to bureaucracy at its worst, not to mention the loss of habitat for birds etc.
	Media attention in the last few years has led to a form of 'conifer rage' where neighbours who have lived quite contentedly next to tall hedges for years have suddenly become quite aggressive to the hedge owners.
	It appears to me that the legislation as outlined in Gardeners World is not just full of pitfalls and blown out of all proportion, but is totally unworkable and likely to cause thousands of hedge owners much concern. I therefore hope that for concerned clients, family, and friends you will do all in your power to oppose this legislation."
	That letter shows the concern that there is among a large group of people. It is in the nature of the British people that they do not wake up to changes to the law until they have been imposed. If they find that changes to the law are adverse, they take it out on their Members of Parliament. I am doing everything in my power to alert my constituents to this legislation.
	I have looked at the April 2003 edition of another magazine, Garden Answers. It has a good play on words in the headline, "Bill to fix hedge rows". On the same page, another headline says, "Nextdoor nightmare". The article states:
	"Over 50 per cent of home owners have a gripe about their neighbours, according to a new survey by the Norwich Union. Respondents revealed their main sources of discontent included neighbours who kept an untidy garden".
	Obviously, there are lots of other reasons why neighbours fall out with each other: barking dogs, cats defecating, smelly bonfires, noisy music, adults swearing at each other, litter in the garden, cockerels, tree roots, leaf fall, noxious weeds and so on. If we do not get this legislation right, it will add another reason: going off to the local authority to complain about the hedge and having it cut down or reduced in size.
	It is not sensible for neighbours to fall out with each other and to try to force changes when those could be secured through amicable agreement. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) said that he was not aware of any instance where it had been possible to mediate in such a hedge dispute. Only last month, as a result of my efforts at mediation, a conifer hedge was cut down by a neighbour, so that the person who complained to me and to him could be relieved of that oppressive hedge. Having cut down his hedges, the neighbour has asked why the person next door has done nothing about her pine trees. If we become too adversarial, it will be tit for tat. He will go off to complain to the local authority and costs will be incurred.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, North said that it would be possible for the local authority to refuse vexatious complaints. That is true but, as the Bill stands, there would still be the right of appeal against such a refusal, with all that that involves. Unlike the situation in the High Court—where if a judge says that someone is a vexatious litigant, he is prevented from making any such complaints again without the leave of the court—there could still be vexatious people who want to take it out on their neighbours. As we have heard, if that dispute were generated at a time when a person was trying to sell a house, it would have to be declared to potential purchasers. The scope for neighbours to fall out with each other will not be restricted much by the Bill.
	I was encouraged when the hon. Gentleman said that there would be objective tests. He will recall that when I expressed reservations about the previous Bill on the subject, it was not because I did not think that there should be legislation in this field. I wanted to ensure that the legislation was clear and unambiguous, and involved objective tests. I was keen that we awaited the outcome of the report organised by the Department of the Environment, as it then was, which looked at the best way to bring in some objective tests.
	The Building Research Establishment produced a report, the contents of which have been useful in my constituency work in giving people an idea as to whether or not their hedge would result in an unacceptable or unreasonable loss of light for their neighbours. Comparing this Bill with the previous Bill—about which I had reservations—I see that the present Bill is going even wider. Clause 4, about complaints procedures, no longer includes this reference in clause 4(4) of the previous Bill:
	"The authority must, when acting under subsection (3), take into consideration all matters appearing to them to be relevant, including in particular . . . the extent to which the high hedge in question is capable of affording (or, if reduced in height, would still be capable of affording) privacy to an occupier of the neighbouring land . . . the extent to which that hedge contributes (or, if reduced in height, would still contribute) to the amenity of the neighbourhood, and . . . any legal obligation (whether imposed by or under any enactment or otherwise) relating to that hedge."
	That safeguard has now been removed from the Bill and, likewise, the definition of high hedge has been widened from the definition in the previous Bill of
	"two or more adjacent evergreens"
	to
	"so much of a barrier to light or access as".
	In the latest draft, we have moved on from an objective assessment of whether there is an unacceptable loss of light as a result of a high hedge to the more subjective issue of whether the hedge itself has an impact upon the next-door neighbour. That is a recipe for disastrous law-making. I am hopeful that, in light of the guarantee given by the hon. Gentleman, objective tests will be introduced in Committee. I do not want to get a reputation as some sort of wrecker. I have always sought to be constructive.
	Many comments were made—albeit late, at Report stage—during the passage of the previous Bill. The promoter of that Bill could have argued that that stage was too late to take on board many of the concerns expressed. However, the promoter of this Bill—the hon. Member for Ealing, North—knows that whether his Bill gets a Second Reading today is hanging by a whisker because of the shortage of time. However, if it does get a Second Reading, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that has happened only because of the indulgence of hon. Members who have severe and serious reservations about it and wish the Bill to be substantially altered in Committee.
	Last week, we heard from a different Minister—the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life. I have never quite understood what happened to the Minister for rural quality of life. Anyway, that Minister expressed severe reservations about the Equine Welfare (Ragwort Control) Bill. He said:
	"As drafted, the Bill would place significant new burdens on local authorities".
	He continued:
	"Local authorities, as one or two hon. Members have acknowledged, have many competing bids for funding—for example, there is the need to provide social care and more money for education."
	He then added:
	"the Government cannot add to the financial burden falling on those bodies by giving them additional responsibilities."—[Official Report, 21 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 1247.]
	I am sure that the Minister today will take this opportunity to explain how the Government's attitude to this Bill is consistent with what the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life said last week. If the Bill gets a Second Reading, I hope that, in Committee, the Government will address a real concern that I and my constituents have—that the costs of this Bill will be very significant. Under the rules for the distribution of grant, constituents will end up paying for it.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that he thinks that the estimate of the total costs is an underestimate and that there may be as many as 17,000 cases as opposed to 10,000 cases.
	I commend to the House the full regulatory impact assessment. It estimates that the cost of a council officer's time to investigate such complaints is, on average, £35 to £40 an hour, and that each complaint may take as long as eight hours to investigate. The assessment goes on to say that there might be 10,000 cases and an estimated 2,000 appeals over three years. That would lead to substantial costs. However, the assessment does not think that costs to the court service will be significant, because it is not thought that the criminal sanctions in the Bill will be used. That leads to an obvious question: why have criminal sanctions in the Bill? Why criminalise neighbours as the Bill proposes to do, when we do not criminalise them for other antisocial things that they do to each other? We should put the emphasis on mediation.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, North referred—tongue in cheek, perhaps—to naturists. What he said would be fine if it were not to be considered alongside the impact of clause 70 of the Sexual Offences Bill. Up to now, if a naturist sat in his garden and the neighbours wanted to look at him or her, that has not been a criminal offence. However, under clause 70 of the Sexual Offences Bill, a person could be committing an offence just by lying nude in his or her garden. Many naturists choose to have highish hedges around their gardens to protect themselves. This Bill could require those hedges to be cut down, and the neighbours could then get the ultimate reward of being able to ask the police to prosecute the person in the garden for sunbathing in the nude. The neighbours would now able to see the naturist because they had required the hedge to be cut down. That is an issue that needs to be addressed, and perhaps anyone who had a high hedge could have as a defence the protection of their naturism.
	I do not think that the libertarian arguments are overwhelming, but they must be taken into account. It is the House's responsibility to ensure that the Bill does not merely appease and appeal to a single-issue pressure group. If it is to change the law, it should do so objectively in a way that can be supported by all members of society.

Laurence Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on reintroducing—I suppose that is the correct term—the Bill, and on speaking in its favour in such an entertaining but serious manner. I thought the balance of his remarks was absolutely correct, because this is a very important issue. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who has been in the Chamber for a large part of today, for introducing the Bill in 2001. He did so because of the great concern that existed, and still exists.
	In general, the Conservative party recognises the problems associated with high hedges. As has been said, they block out the light and the sun, they can harm soil conditions and damage drains, and fast-growing leylandii trees in certain areas can be a particular problem. Those problems, and the resulting disputes between neighbours, destroy previously good relations, harming the quality of life of people who have been caught up in them. The problem seems to have been the lack of a remedy, which has caused difficulties to drag on. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's Bill is intended to enable local authorities to take remedial action where necessary—that is the point; it is important to ensure that action is taken only where necessary. As he rightly said, the Bill does not ban high hedges or tall leylandii trees—I have tall leylandii trees in my garden, and I do not think that those will be banned because I have no neighbours. I do not think that the legislation would be a problem to me; if it became a problem, I would take the matter up again with the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow: Apart from the concern highlighted in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that a naturist defence might lead to a sudden exponential increase in the number of professed naturists in this country buying their high hedges on that basis, has my hon. Friend considered whether the profession of naturist would be self-verifying or open to external inspection?

Laurence Robertson: I have neither my hon. Friend's intellect nor eloquence. It therefore might be better if I say that, in certain cases, whether people object to high hedges will depend very much on the people who were displaying themselves. In view of the lack of time, I will duck his intervention.

Paul Beresford: On a more serious note, I see that my hon. Friend's constituency is Tewkesbury. My knowledge of this country's geography may be somewhat limited in comparison with that of Members who are not immigrants, but I suspect that most of his constituency is rural. Would he agree, therefore, that a high proportion of the hedges in his area would be considerably more than 2 m above the ground, and that the definition in the Bill, which is that a high hedge rises to a height of more than 2 m above the ground, should not really apply to his constituency, and certainly should not apply to mine?

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend has made many good and serious points, but probably three quarters of Tewkesbury lies in built-up areas, and I have had many letters from a great many people on this subject. I recognise the point that he makes, however.
	The nightmare of high hedges has gone on for some years. I regret that there has not been Government action to tackle it. They have made noises: the Minister for the Environment has mentioned it, as has the Under-Secretary. Apart from publishing the "Over the Garden Hedge" leaflet in 2002, however, we have not seen a great deal of Government action in that regard. I wonder whether the Government intend to take over the Bill, because the Minister said that we should not reach a point at which councils or the courts need to intervene. Will he clarify their position in his winding-up speech?
	Several hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, expressed concerns about aspects of the Bill. I shall not repeat them all owing to the shortage of time, but I shall highlight one or two. We recognise the worries of people who live next door to high hedges. However, they can protect people's privacy, as we heard. People write to hon. Members saying that they want their windows or gardens to be protected and kept private, and high hedges and trees might be the only way to do that. We should bear in mind people who live near roads. I live near a motorway that can be noisy in certain atmospheric conditions and the trees in my garden protect me from that.
	We want to avoid creating excessive bureaucracy for local authorities because they will have to consider complaints, issue remedial notices and ensure that people comply with them. Will they receive proper financial support to enable them to do that? The hon. Member for Ealing, North referred to clause 21, which relates to financial provisions, but it would not guarantee that the Government would provide the money necessary to enable local authorities to take on yet another duty.
	We recognise the problems, disputes and misery that are often caused by high hedges, and people who suffer must be able to access a legal remedy. I hope that the important caveats that my hon. Friends and I have mentioned will be addressed during later stages of the Bill and with that proviso, I hope that it receives its Second Reading.

Tony McNulty: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) not only on promoting the Bill, but on his work in the past. I commend all that has been said about Baroness Gardner of Parkes, Lord Graham of Edmonton, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and the former Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, who started the process some time ago. I shall not go through the list of hon. Members who spoke in support of the Bill, although that would all be terribly nice, because it is more appropriate to deal with the serious, well-measured and informed points made by those who have problems with it.
	The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) was right to say that the focus of the Bill is height and light and that the quagmire of the law, owing to its complexity on the notion of what is a nuisance, has been unsatisfactory. Hon. Members may know that I do not cling to the notion of consensus being virtuous in itself, although it might be on the odd occasion. I happily endorse the fair point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about unanimity among the three Front Benches because that does not always result in good law or legislation that would be looked at with pride down the ages.
	I agree with a point made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). Although this rather imitates the position of the National Rifle Association—with no malice intended toward America—it is not the plant that is at fault, but the owner. That is entirely right. The Bill is not about the eradication of leylandii or other similar hedgerows and trees. It is not as though they are triffids, growing regardless of what the most well-intentioned owner does to them. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right to say that civil legal action is a rather tortuous route by which to resolve these issues.
	The hon. Members for Mole Valley, for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made some fair points about the Bill's rough edges. However, the hon. Member for Christchurch slightly misinterpreted the Bill; there is no appeal process under clause 4(2). If the council determines that the person bringing the complaint has not exhausted all other avenues, the complainant has no right of appeal, and if the council decides that the complaint is vexatious or frivolous, there is no appeal, so people cannot get into a loop of making appeal after appeal.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch is right to suggest that the problem is conifer rage or hedge rage, as he described it, although I do not know whether it is caused by attempts to pass legislation such as this. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman serves on the Standing Committee, I may have some dispute with him about the cause of these problems. I disagree with his correspondent who suggests that the Bill will create serious pitfalls and is unworkable.
	I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that the Bill is not offered up as a panacea. If it were, it would not contain the trip switch identified by the hon. Member for Bath, which allows that there may be scope to revisit the nature of complaints and the definition of high hedges. That is important, because if, as a result of the pitfalls and drawbacks suggested by Opposition Members, the Bill is not successful, there is scope to reconsider those matters rather than taking up the valuable time of the House.
	I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Mole Valley was being a bit presumptuous in assuming what form the appeal body will take. As he will know, the regulatory impact assessment and the explanatory notes say that appeals may be considered by the planning inspectorate, but the make-up of the appeal body is deliberately not explained. The Bill prescribes the appeal process, but not the appeal body. That is a matter for the council.
	The Bill is meant to be flexible, and I do not think that it is a significant shift away from the objectivity of the Building Research Establishment guidelines that featured in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Solihull. We are not about to see hedge wars raging throughout suburbia in south-east England, but these are serious matters.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North is slightly wrong on one point: about 260 MPs have written to me on this matter since last April or May. I am glad to see many of them in the Chamber.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell made a serious point in asking whether the Bill is just about boundaries. It is not—nuisance can transcend boundaries. He also talked about the implementation of remedial action, which should be more fully explored in Committee. Other hon. Members made serious points about whether the stated height of 2 m and over is sufficient, and those should be tackled in Committee. However, underlying everything that Members have said is the belief that the Bill should receive a Second Reading, and I commend it to the House.

Stephen Pound: With the leave of the House, I thank all those who have contributed to this useful debate, and I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills.)

Disabled People (Duties of Public Authorities) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am delighted to have so much time to speak to this important Bill, which has support from the three main political parties, as well as from disability organisations and the Disability Rights Commission. It will add to disability law, ensuring that people with disabilities are included, rather than excluded, particularly by those in the public—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 May.

Remaining Private Member's Bill
	 — 
	GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 4 April.

PROSTATE CANCER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

John Bercow: It is always a pleasure to address a packed House of Commons. Today, however, I am simply grateful for the opportunity to speak on the subject of prostate cancer in prostate cancer awareness week.
	Recently, 18 charities with specialist expertise in this field came together to launch the prostate cancer charter for action. I congratulate them on their initiative in doing so. For my own purposes in the context of this debate, I am appreciative, above all, of the briefing that I have received. I have been advised on this subject in detail by the chief executive of the Prostate Cancer Charity, Mr. John Neate, and by other experts in the field. Specifically, I have had the benefit of the professional assistance of Mike Birtwistle and Nick Laitner. I am grateful to them both.
	This is an increasingly important initiative to increase awareness of, and effective action to tackle, prostate cancer. It might help if I start by establishing the context in which the debate takes place. Interest in the subject in the House was reflected in the last parliamentary Session in 35 questions to Ministers. There have been an additional 11 such questions in this Session. More particularly, four early-day motions have been tabled respectively by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). They attracted respectively 26, 114, 146 and 59 signatures. Members on both sides of the House have a legitimate concern to promote greater understanding of, and treatment for, this terrible disease.
	Prostate cancer is rapidly becoming the biggest curse for men and particularly, although not exclusively, for older men. The most common cancer among men is lung cancer, but prostate cancer is catching up. Many people believe that it will soon overtake lung cancer.
	How many people are sufferers? We know that 25,000 people are now diagnosed in the United Kingdom each year as suffering from this horrific and often fatal disease. Some 10,000 men die each year from the disease, and a man has a one in 13 lifetime chance of suffering from it. In my area of the vale of Aylesbury, within which the Buckingham constituency falls, the incidence of prostate cancer is 29 per cent. higher than for the United Kingdom as a whole.
	Moreover, it is not simply a phenomenon of the incidence of the disease, but of the fatalities that flow from it. We know that, over a long period in this country, survival rates have been significantly poorer than elsewhere in the European Union. After five years from diagnosis, only 44.3 per cent. of men in the United Kingdom are still alive by comparison with the average in the European Union of approximately 55.7 per cent.
	In the light of those alarming statistics, it is especially worrying that a third of men do not know what the prostate is. Given those statistics, there is a great deal of justifiable interest in, and anxiety about, the subject in the House.
	I congratulate the Government on the announcement of the formation of the prostate cancer advisory group, a welcome initiative on which they have rightly been congratulated by all the interested parties in the field. If the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), when responding to the debate, can tell me and others interested in the subject something about the composition of that group and its intended terms of reference, that would be helpful. My understanding is that it will be chaired by the distinguished specialist, Professor Mike Richards, and its purpose is to marshal all the resources and expertise of what the Government call the stakeholders in the field to ensure that the approach to the subject in future is more effective than it may have been in the past.
	The Minister will be aware that the focus of the Prostate Cancer Charity's charter for action is action on a number of fronts. First, we need action on transparency. We require an interim report on the Government's success or otherwise in fulfilling the targets that they have set. For example, in the recruitment of urologists, we need to know how we are doing and what future plans are. People would be interested to learn from the Minister to what extent there has been compliance with the stated target from December 2000 onwards of ensuring that anyone suspected by his GP of suffering from prostate cancer has the opportunity of an out-patient appointment with a specialist within two weeks. Action on transparency is therefore the first requirement that I put to the Minister on behalf of the charities involved, and on which I would be interested to hear her response.
	Secondly, we need action on public awareness in this field. The charities are anxious that a health education campaign should be launched no later than autumn this year. We need a male-friendly, media-oriented, effective public relations and promotional initiative that focuses on different features of this important debate. It should focus on the function of the prostate—that, after all, is what we are discussing first and foremost, and from it everything else follows. That campaign needs to challenge the notion of the inevitability of the increased incidence of the disease. Thirdly, there is a requirement to highlight risk factors, whether behavioural or inherited, which are likely to result in the disease and its detection. Fourthly, there is a terribly important requirement to describe the role of the PSA test—the prostate-specific antigen test.
	A lot of people think that there should be a national screening programme. Equally, most of the major charities in the field and people with expertise think that there should not be one at this stage because the test is unreliable. However, we need to put the information on the record and tell sufferers and people who think that they may be sufferers, "These are your options. This is the information that should be available to you." Public awareness is critical, and I remind the hon. Lady that when the Government launched their prostate cancer programme in September 2000 they made a firm commitment to a public information campaign. People expect them to deliver on that commitment, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.
	Fourthly, we need action on patient care. That means information for patients, multidisciplinary working and comparing different treatments for this grim disease. There seem to be three main methods of tackling it. One is active monitoring, the second is radiotherapy, and the third is surgery. If memory serves me correctly—and if I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will advise me this afternoon—the Government rightly placed an important focus on clinical trials. Quite properly, they want to be guided by the evidence before spending further public resources.
	The Government committed £13 million, I believe, to a clinical trial based in nine separate locations. People who have raised the subject with me in my constituency, either one-to-one or via correspondence, are keen to know the outcome of that trial. Can we have some sort of progress report on it? What conclusions from the study have Ministers so far drawn? We also need an audited education programme for the benefit of primary care providers. That is all part of the package of patient care assistance in respect of which action is needed.
	Fourthly, we need action on resources. It is a commonplace for Members of Parliament to call for additional resources in respect of particular problems or areas of Government activity. I am, in a sense, no exception today, though in a good cause. It is worthwhile to stress that I am not calling for the willy-nilly expenditure of resources, which might not yield much of a result. There should be a targeted programme of investment in three areas.
	First, there can be no doubt that we need an increase in the number of trained pathologists to cater to the increased demand for treatment that the higher incidence of the disease has brought about. Any information that the hon. Lady can give me today as to what the Government are doing in that regard and what they propose to do in the future would be much appreciated. Secondly, we need more specialist cancer nurses who have a particular expertise in prostate cancer, both for the benefit of the sufferers themselves, and for the purpose of assisting at primary care level.
	Thirdly, we need increased resources for the purpose of research into how we can more effectively detect the disease, research into the relative aggressiveness or otherwise of that disease, and research into the respective merits of the different forms of treatment. We need to recognise that there can be individually tailored programmes of treatment, and that we should not take a holistic view and say that one form of treatment is right for everybody. Investment targeted to the ends that I have outlined would be greatly welcomed. That requires, as somebody might have said, action this day.
	Finally, we need action on partnership. I recognise that no one can do it all on his or her own. It is not a matter only for the Government. It is not a matter only for the national health service professionals. It is not a matter only for the voluntary sector, magnificent accumulated expertise and commitment though that sector can boast. It is a matter for all three. We need a Government commitment. We also need specialist expertise from the national health service, and we will require the integrated role of the voluntary sector. We need to ensure that all those players come together with a common purpose and a common determination to achieve it.
	Prostate cancer is one of the most important subjects that a Member of Parliament could identify and address, so far as the male population of this country is concerned. There has been an enormous focus on cancer as a whole, and that is right and proper. There has, in particular, been a strong focus on breast cancer. I make it clear that I in no way criticise or cavil at that. A great deal more probably still needs to be done in relation to that important subject. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which prostate cancer has not, over the years, under Governments of both colours, received the attention or the determined application of resources that are required.
	The Government are doing good and valuable work in this area. The Minister will be aware that I have raised the issue on a wholly non-partisan basis. All I am concerned about is improving the detection and treatment of and recovery rates from this ghastly disease. I have said my piece and I look forward to hearing that of the Minister.

Hazel Blears: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his success in securing the debate. It is particularly appropriate and timely, because, as he said, this is prostate cancer awareness week. I also congratulate the Prostate Cancer Charity, which has done an enormous amount of work in raising the profile of this terrible disease and in helping us to focus our attention on it. I have been particularly pleased to be associated with both the very active all-party men's health group in the House and the Prostate Cancer Charity. I have worked closely with them to see how we can do even more than we are already doing to try to ensure that we have a holistic approach to our policies in this area.
	I should be able to respond to virtually all the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised today, which are all important elements of what should be a properly rounded programme to try to meet the needs of men in these circumstances.
	First, it is right to acknowledge that prostate cancer has not previously received the attention that it deserves, which is why, in September 2000, we published the prostate cancer programme setting out what is currently known about prostate cancer and establishing a firm framework for action divided into three specific areas—first, research, of which much more is needed in this area; secondly, prostate-specific antigen testing, particularly the interaction of general practitioners with their patients with regard to requests for tests; and, thirdly, improvement in services in terms of waiting times, the work force and streamlining the process that patients have to undergo when they have been diagnosed with prostate cancer. I should like to give hon. Members a sense of the progress that has been made on those three areas and to outline the steps that we still need to take, because much more needs to be done.
	First, the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of research and it is fair to say that our knowledge is still quite limited, not only of what causes prostate cancer, but of the variations between slowly developing prostate cancer and the more aggressive forms of cancer, and the likelihood of the disease developing in patients in different circumstances. We have now set a target of directly funded Department of Health research of £4.2 million and we are on track to spend that by the stated date of 2004. I am told that that is a 20-fold increase in the amount spent on research compared with 1999–2000. That is an indication of the low research base from which we started, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is a significant investment by the Department.
	Two National Cancer Research Institute prostate cancer research collaboratives have been established—one in Newcastle and one in London—and there is a range of different research projects. One of them is looking into the differences in prostate cancer in different ethnic groups. It is a matter of concern that in the African community in particular the rates of prostate cancer are significantly higher than in other communities, and we must bear down on that research.
	We also have a large-scale randomised controlled trial of treatments for localised prostate cancer—the Protec T trial—evaluating different treatments. As the hon. Gentleman said, the trial will cost about £13 million and consists of three arms—active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. The trial began on 1 June 2001 and will last for five years, so it is fairly lengthy. The lead researcher is Professor Freddie Hamdy from Sheffield, and the hon. Gentleman could obtain further details from him if he wishes.
	We also have a highly innovative study to create and test a new non-invasive treatment for prostate cancer. Some prostate cancer treatments can be fairly damaging. The new technique uses magnetic resonance imaging to locate the cancer and high intensity focused ultrasound to destroy it inside the body. If that non-invasive technique is successful, it could prove very attractive to many people with the disease.
	We have also initiated a study to improve radiotherapy treatment, again using MRI techniques, and a review of new and emerging treatments, including brachyotherapy and cryotherapy, which are being developed in new centres. Some £900,000 is being made available to enable NHS patients to enter the trial conducted by the National Cancer Institute of Canada and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, which are considering brachyotherapy—a new and emerging technique to which we want to ensure NHS patients can have access. We are also collaborating with regard to a collection of 3,000 tumour samples that can be used by a range of different researchers to try to take the matter forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that we are pushing on with a range of research projects.
	The second issue that I want to highlight is waiting times for people who have been diagnosed. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 95.7 per cent. of patients with suspected urological cancers, including prostate cancer, were seen for their first out-patient appointment within two weeks of their GP deciding that they should be urgently referred in the quarter October to December last year—the last quarter for which we have figures. I hope that he will understand that that is a pretty high figure and that it should represent a significant contribution to getting people treated quickly, which is very important.
	The Cancer Services Collaborative projects are working across all cancer fields, including prostate cancer. They involve surgeons, clinicians and patients working together to redesign the patient pathway. In some cases, they are reducing waiting times dramatically through some very simple and straightforward steps. Genuine improvements are occurring across the field.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the work force. I can tell him that there has been a 24 per cent. increase since 1997 in the number of consultant urologists; the number has risen from 343 to 427 in that time. Our current work force projections show that an additional 100 trained specialists should be available to take up consultant posts in urology by 2004. Those are significant increases in the number of consultants. He also referred to nurses and pathologists. He will be aware that some 40,000 extra nurses are now working in the NHS generally, many of whom will be able to work as specialists in the cancer field. I am sure that many of them will want to pursue their interests in prostate cancer in particular.
	On pathology, recruitment and development have been difficult in the past, but pathologists are crucial to the diagnosis and treatment of all cancer patients. Diagnostic pathology services are responsible for 60 to 70 per cent. of all NHS diagnoses. We have now provided funding for three histopathology training schools to attract more senior house officers to pursue a career in histopathology. We have designed some innovative training methods. Each new site is now training six people a year. The schools were initially funded for three years and the initial evaluation has proved so positive—people are now almost queueing up to come into the schools—that we are planning to set up an additional nine training schools. Each of those schools will train eight SHOs annually. Three of them will be established in 2004–05 and the remaining six will be established in 2005–06. By 2006, they will be training an extra 96 specialist registrars every year. That will make a significant impact on the ability of the NHS to respond in those areas.
	The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance will improve treatment for patients. NICE has issued "Improving Outcomes in Urological Cancers: The Manual", which sets out guidelines on the way in which treatment should be provided. That guidance, which was issued in September 2002, clearly states that all patients with urological cancers should be managed by multidisciplinary urological cancer teams. It is of key importance that we get all the different professions to co-operate so that we can streamline services and so that people can get proper information from a range of professionals in that area.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned screening, which is a controversial issue; some parties recommend universal screening programmes, while other clinicians feel that that is not the right way to go as yet. We are committed to introducing a screening programme if and when screening techniques are sufficiently well developed. There is no conclusive evidence from any country that a universal screening programme would reduce the death rate from prostate cancer. We have a National Screening Committee in the UK. It has advised us that, on existing evidence, a national screening programme would not be justified. However, we have asked the committee to keep the matter under review because the decision is not based on cost. When the evidence justifies a proper screening programme, we shall, of course undertake it. However, it must be properly evidence based.

John Bercow: I want to press the Minister on the creation, proposed by the cancer charities, of a national database on the incidence, treatment and outcome of the treatment of the disease. What assessment has the Minister made of the reasons for the difference in incidence of prostate cancer in different parts of the United Kingdom?

Hazel Blears: If the charities are proposing to establish a database, the more information we have, the better informed will be our policy decisions. I would encourage gathering as much information as possible on outcomes, treatment and the way in which we improve services for everyone.
	We do not yet have sufficient information about the reasons for the differences in incidence to provide definitive views. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the prostate cancer risk management programme pack, which we have issued to all general practitioners for them to discuss with their patients. The materials in the pack set out in detail the existing differences of view about screening, treatment and the reliability of the prostate specific antigen test, which is not an automatic indicator of whether people have prostate cancer and whether it is likely to be aggressive. It is important that patients have a genuine opportunity to sit down with their GP and talk in detail about the options and the support in making the right decision. That theme runs through many of our programmes. Giving patients the best information and power, thus enabling them to participate in decision making is crucial. I commend the pack to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he has seen it, but it contains a leaflet, a tear-off slip and something to take home and consider before taking the next steps.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned a public awareness campaign. We promised that there would be a public, patient and GP education and information campaign. That is crucial. We do not want to frighten everyone who has no symptoms into believing that they must have the test and that it will tell them everything that they want to know. We must think the matter through carefully and discuss it in consultations. The resource pack is therefore an important tool.
	We have funded the charities to undertake awareness-raising campaigns. We funded the Prostate Cancer Charity with £135,000 over three years to disseminate a range of awareness material. We recently granted it a further amount of £106,000 over the next three years to fund a project to improve awareness among men from the African and Afro-Caribbean communities. The Department has therefore made a genuine commitment to ensuring that we disseminate information.
	We have also funded the DIPEx—Database of Individual Patient Experiences—website. It is very innovative and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman logs on. It is full of clips from people who have suffered from the disease. It is a fantastic way in which to let people hear the genuine voices of other patients rather than simply those of professionals.
	I emphasise that the advisory group that was established under the chairmanship of Mike Richards, the national cancer director, will provide a tremendous opportunity for everybody—the NHS professionals, the voluntary sector, patients—to come together to maximise the skills and expertise that are in the field. The hon. Gentleman was right that the terms of reference are to ensure that our policy presses on. I have no doubt that the group will keep pressing me to make even faster progress. I welcome that and have said so to people who will be involved with the group. There is much more development of NHS practice based on partnership models. The NHS does not always know best or have a monopoly of wisdom. It is important to me to draw people into the process. I do not have precise details of the group's membership, but when the matter has been resolved I should be delighted to let the hon. Gentleman have details of membership, programme and priorities for the first few months.
	I hope that I have managed to address most of the hon. Gentleman's points about working practices and recruitment. I hope that he will be satisfied that we have made significant progress, although I am the first to acknowledge that there is a long way to go. The issue is important not only to men but to their families and carers.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.